Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Edward Mifsud
1
Abstract
2
Declaration
I hereby declare that, except where explicit attribution is made, the work
presented in this thesis in entirely my own.
Signature:
3
Acknowledgements
Most of all, I am eternally indebted to my wife Carmen for her support, patience
and additional burden caused by my frequent absence from family life due to
the great commitment that a doctoral research invariably demands.
4
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................... 13
1.1 My interest in Biology and learning ...................................... 15
1.2 The significance of early naturalistic influences................... 18
1.3 Maltese ecology and natural history ..................................... 21
1.4 Malta’s natural history dioramas ......................................... 23
1.5 A case for natural history dioramas ..................................... 23
1.6 Primary science and curriculum in Malta ............................ 25
1.6.1 The state of primary school science .............................................................. 25
1.6.2 Primary Science Curricula and Syllabi.........................................................28
1.7 Uniqueness of this research ................................................. 29
1.8 Rationale for the research ................................................... 30
1.8.1 Research Objectives ...................................................................................... 32
5
3.2.3 Trip preparation and teacher involvement ................................................. 72
3.3 Theories of Perception ........................................................ 74
3.3.1 The mental model ......................................................................................... 76
3.3.2 Intellectual and Visual Realism ...................................................................82
3.4 Towards a new theoretical model ........................................ 85
3.4.1 Activity Theory ............................................................................................ 88
4 Methodology ...............................................................98
4.1 Drawing by children ............................................................ 99
4.1.1 Children constructing drawings ................................................................... 99
4.1.2 Cultural influences on drawing ................................................................... 111
4.1.3 Drawing for eliciting knowledge .................................................................114
4.2 The pilot study .................................................................... 121
4.2.1 Methodology ................................................................................................121
4.2.2 Research design ......................................................................................... 122
4.3 Ethical Issues .................................................................... 122
4.4 Drawing data ..................................................................... 123
4.4.1 Pre-visit task ............................................................................................... 123
4.4.2 During the visit .......................................................................................... 124
4.4.3 Post-visit task ............................................................................................. 124
4.5 Analysis ............................................................................. 124
4.5.1 Qualitative considerations: pre-visit drawings .......................................... 126
4.5.2 Post-visit drawings ..................................................................................... 128
4.5.3 Quantitative Considerations ...................................................................... 128
4.5.4 Variety scores ............................................................................................. 129
4.5.5 Elaboration Scores ..................................................................................... 130
4.6 Discussion of pilot data ...................................................... 131
4.7 Conclusions from pilot ...................................................... 133
4.8 Implications of the pilot for the main study ....................... 134
4.9 The main study ...................................................................135
4.9.1 Research design .......................................................................................... 136
4.9.2 Creating webs (personal meaning mapping) ............................................ 137
4.10 Drawing data collected .................................................... 138
4.10.1 Class task before the museum visit .......................................................... 138
4.10.2 During the visit ......................................................................................... 140
4.10.3 Post-visit task ............................................................................................141
4.10.4 Data collection and scoring ...................................................................... 142
4.11 The Maltese natural history dioramas .............................. 143
6
4.12 Data analysis using Altas.ti ...............................................147
4.12.1 Working with Altas.ti ................................................................................ 148
4.12.2 The hermeneutic units ............................................................................. 148
4.12.3 Networks .................................................................................................... 151
4.12.4 Scoring the drawings ................................................................................ 152
4.13 Progressional analysis of drawings ...................................153
6 Discussion ................................................................206
6.1 Overview of the research.................................................... 207
6.2 Mental models of animals and plants ................................ 208
6.2.1 Species of animals children see most ..........................................................211
7
6.2.2 Species of plants children see most ........................................................... 217
6.3 Interacting with the dioramas ........................................... 219
6.4 Interpreting the diorama ................................................... 223
6.5 An interpretative model..................................................... 226
6.5.1 The model applied to data from one child .................................................229
6.6 The Diorama: biological model for learning? .................... 232
6.7 Sources of knowledge ........................................................ 234
6.8 Impact of the visit .............................................................. 235
8
List of Tables
Table 3-1. Formal, non-formal and informal learning (Eshach, 2008). ............ 68
Table 4-1. Scale used for scoring elaboration (iii. above) based on Bowker
(2007).......................................................................................................... 126
Table 4-2. % pupils drawing the listed organisms in pre- and post- visit
drawings. ..................................................................................................... 127
Table 4-3. Scoring Rubric Name: Becky School: A ...................................... 128
Table 4-4. Scoring a diorama drawing for closeness to actual setting. ............. 153
Table 5-1. Class task categories defined ............................................................. 156
Table 5-2. Class Task HU category drawings and codes. ...................................157
Table 5-3. Class Task animal subordinate group (taxon) drawings and codes. 158
Table 5-4. Type of organism drawn in the respective taxonomic group. .......... 159
Table 5-5. Pre-diorama Task HU category drawings and codes. ...................... 160
Table 5-6. Pre-diorama animal subordinate group: drawings and codes......... 162
Table 5-7. Type of organism drawn in the respective taxonomic group. .......... 163
Table 5-8. Web Task HU category drawings and codes. ................................... 164
Table 5-9. Web task animal category subordinate group drawings and codes. 165
Table 5-10. Type of organism written in webs in the respective taxonomic group.
..................................................................................................................... 166
Table 5-11. Diorama Task categories defined ................................................... 167
Table 5-12. Diorama Task HU category drawings and codes. ........................... 168
Table 5-13. Diorama task animal subordinate category drawings and codes. .. 170
Table 5-14. Different items noticed and drawn from the four Dioramas selected.
...................................................................................................................... 171
Table 5-15. Diorama drawing compositional scores.......................................... 172
Table 6-1. Interpretation Model terms defined ................................................. 227
9
List of Figures
Figure 2-1.Psychological State Determinants (Krapp, 1999) .............................. 45
Figure 3-1. Representation Construction (Reiss & Tunnicliffe, 1999) ................ 78
Figure 3-2. Semiotic model of perception (Krampen, 1991) ............................... 81
Figure 3-3. Contextual Model by Falk and Dierking. .......................................... 86
Figure 3-4. Acuity Model by Patrick. ................................................................... 87
Figure 3-5. Model-Based Learning by Buckley and Boulter. .............................. 87
Figure 3-6. Vygotsky's Tiangular Model. ............................................................. 89
Figure 3-7. Leont'ev's second generation model. ................................................90
Figure 3-8. Engeström's Activity System. ............................................................90
Figure 3-9. Activity System from CHAT. ............................................................. 93
Figure 3-10. Activity System by Leont’ev............................................................. 96
Figure 4-1. Mean score for whole group: variety (pilot). ................................... 129
Figure 4-2. Mean score for School A & B: variety (pilot). ................................. 129
Figure 4-3. Post-visit mean scores for Schools A & B (pilot). ........................... 130
Figure 4-4. Mean score for whole group: elaboration (pilot). ........................... 130
Figure 4-5. Mean score for School A & B: elaboration (pilot). ........................... 131
Figure 4-6. Data collection time-line. ................................................................ 136
Figure 4-7. House Yard habitat diorama. .......................................................... 144
Figure 4-8. Agrifield Habitat Diorama. ............................................................. 145
Figure 4-9. Valley Floor Habitat Diorama. ........................................................ 145
Figure 4-10. Sand Dune Habitat Diorama. ........................................................ 146
Figure 4-11. Bastion Habitat Diorama. .............................................................. 146
Figure 4-12. Schematic process of data analysis with Atlas.ti ........................... 148
Figure 4-13. Coding pane in Atlas.ti (example 1).............................................. 150
Figure 4-14. Coding pane in Atlas.ti (example 2). ............................................. 150
Figure 4-15. Coding pane in Atlas.ti (example 3). ............................................. 151
Figure 5-1. % Drawings and codes for the categories in the Class Task............ 158
Figure 5-2. % Drawings and codes in the animal subordinate taxonomic groups.
..................................................................................................................... 159
Figure 5-3. % Drawings and codes for the categories in the Pre-diorama Task.
...................................................................................................................... 161
Figure 5-4. % Drawings and codes in the animal subordinate taxonomic groups.
..................................................................................................................... 162
Figure 5-5. Examples of two quite different webs. ............................................ 163
10
Figure 5-6. % Drawings and codes for the categories in the Web Task. ........... 164
Figure 5-7. % Drawings and codes in the animal subordinate taxonomic groups.
..................................................................................................................... 165
Figure 5-8. % Drawings and codes for the categories in the Diorama Task. .... 169
Figure 5-9. % Drawings and codes in the animal subordinate taxonomic groups.
..................................................................................................................... 170
Figure 5-10. Codes of the different features drawn in the dioramas selected. .. 171
Figure 5-11. Scores of the main features drawn in the diorama drawings. ....... 173
Figure 5-12. Class drawing by Andrew. ............................................................. 173
Figure 5-13. Pre-diorama drawing by Andrew. ..................................................175
Figure 5-14. Diorama drawing by Andrew......................................................... 176
Figure 5-15. Web by Andrew. ............................................................................. 178
Figure 5-16. Drawings by Phyllisianne. ............................................................. 180
Figure 5-17. Drawing by Kurt – merging dioramas. ...........................................181
Figure 5-18. Increased habitat representation by Paolo. .................................. 182
Figure 5-19. Increased habitat representation by Nell. ..................................... 183
Figure 5-20. Better habitat representation by Deon. ........................................ 184
Figure 5-21. Increased habitat representation by Marie Cloe. .......................... 185
Figure 5-22. Improved habitat representation by Lenise. ................................ 186
Figure 5-23. Improved habitat representation by Jeremy. ............................... 187
Figure 5-24. Improved organism representation by Claire............................... 188
Figure 5-25. Improved habitat representation by Thorin. ................................ 189
Figure 5-26. Elaboration in organism representation by Kurt. ........................ 190
Figure 5-27. Elaboration in organism representation by Matthew.................... 191
Figure 5-28. Change toward reduced habitat representation by Liam. ............ 192
Figure 5-29. Change toward reduced variety by Mark. ..................................... 193
Figure 5-30. Change toward reduced elaboration by Erica. ............................. 194
Figure 5-31. Change toward reduced variety and habitat by Francesca. .......... 195
Figure 5-32. Change toward reduced habitat by Myron. .................................. 196
Figure 5-33. Change toward reduced elaboration and variety by Chris ........... 197
Figure 6-1. Drawing sample by Christian .......................................................... 212
Figure 6-2. Drawing sample by Mark. ............................................................... 213
Figure 6-3. Drawing sample by Erica. ............................................................... 213
Figure 6-4. Drawing samples by Lenise, Dale, Andrew and Gerald. ................ 214
Figure 6-5. Drawings by Benjamin .................................................................... 222
11
Figure 6-6. Drawings by Nathan ........................................................................ 223
Figure 6-7. Progression of mental model from Class to Diorama. .................... 224
Figure 6-8. Interpretation Model for cultural tools. ......................................... 226
Figure 6-9. Jeremy’s Sand Dune representation. ..............................................230
Figure 6-10. Applying the Interpretative Model................................................ 231
Figure 6-11. Jeremy’s local cliff and predatory bird representation. ................ 231
12
1 Introduction
13
‘The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man.’
Charles Darwin
‘If one really loves nature, one can find beauty everywhere.’
Vincent van Gogh
The research I present here is a first on natural history dioramas and their
potential in biological education, one of few out of school studies in Malta, and
also a first in the field on the potential of natural history dioramas as biological
models for visualization and interpretation of animals and plants. This thesis
explores the visual impact of natural history dioramas on primary school
children, how they make sense of the dioramas to visualize and understand local
flora and fauna and build a mental model and how previous knowledge and
culture influence the construction of the mental model.
In chapter 1, I introduce the research and set the scene of the research in the
Maltese context, present the natural history dioramas in Malta and their role in
Biological learning and state the rationale for the research in this relatively
under-explored area within the socio-constructivist paradigm. The research
questions are stated at the end of the chapter. In chapter 2, I discuss the
literature related to children’s understanding of biology, flora, fauna,
environment and nature, and studies pertaining to natural history dioramas and
their potential for learning in biology. In Chapter 3, I provide the conceptual
framework for the research by discussing the literature relating to
constructivism, socioculturalism, informal learning, museum learning,
perception and mental models, and activity theory. In Chapter 4, I discuss in
detail the issues relating to children’s drawings, present the pilot study and
explain in detail the data collection methods for the empirical work and
qualitative/semi-quantitative analysis adopted using Atlas.ti. In Chapter 5, I
present the results of the analysis of drawings, webs, interviews and audio data
collected. In Chapter 6, I discuss the main findings relating to understanding of
flora and fauna by Maltese children, their interpretation of the dioramas and I
present the novel theoretical model. In Chapter 7, I discuss the limitations of
the research and methods, the main conclusions from the data, the contribution
14
to knowledge and give my main recommendations for learning and further
research.
By the manner in which they represent natural settings, habitat dioramas can
serve as important learning tools for visitors of all ages. For many years, people
in Europe and the United States have been awestruck by the uniqueness of these
exhibits, but habitat dioramas are only a recent addition to the Natural History
Museum here in Malta. Like other researchers (Cotumaccio, 2015; Dunmall,
2015; Garibay and Gyllenhaal, 2015; Livingstone, 2015; Reiss, 2015; Scheersoi,
2015; Tinworth, 2015; Tunnicliffe; 2015), I believe in the value of natural history
dioramas as resources for biological learning. In this research, I look into the
potential of natural history dioramas to aid nine-year-old school children in
learning about local flora and fauna of the Maltese archipelago. I also address
the curricular shortcomings and argue for the education role of museums and
their place in the science curriculum. Unlike the United Kingdom and the
United States, Malta does not have a tradition of collaboration between
museums and schools. In recent years, Heritage Malta (an organisation that is
responsible for all state owned museums) has introduced basic educational
programs, but only in a very limited number of museums.
15
had a crucial influence on me, instilled in me a love for nature and motivated
my enthusiasm for the biological sciences.
16
student learning is not sufficiently encouraged and out-of-school learning
experiences are very limited. I firmly believe that no contribution may be
reliable or credible unless it is grounded in thorough research. Although I have,
in the past decade, worked in science education at post secondary level, my
main research interest now is in early science particularly the learning of
biology in non-formal settings.
17
conceptual dioramas of local natural history habitats at the NHM in Malta are
an underutilised educational resource. This is mainly due to the ethos of out of
school visits and the apparent lack of attention afforded by most schools and
lack of emphasis on informal learning in teacher training. Dioramas may serve
as an early stimulus for children to recognise and become further familiar with
their local biodiversity. The diorama experience may encourage children to look
closer around them and may be notice an organism or two. Although it is
always desirable to have direct exposure to organisms in the natural world
(Hamilton et al, 1991: 16), dioramas can be valuable to the urban community in
constructing understanding of the different habitats and interactions between
organisms (Tunnicliffe, 2005: 24). Habitat dioramas are both an untapped
educational resource (Borg, 2009) and a valuable resource for museum
education (Marnadinia and Oliveria, 2009).
Ernest Ingersoll (1852-1946) was an American shellfish biologist and like many
naturalists of that era, his principal amusement as a boy was searching through
the woods and fields around Monroe (Michigan) for rare and curious natural
history specimens. Carl Linnaeus was a Swedish Naturalist (1707-1778) born in
Rashult and raised in Stenbrohult where as a young boy he possessed his own
garden, which, he later described as "inflamed my soul with an unquenchable
18
love of plants" (Kilpatrick, 1998:427). Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882)
already exhibited a flair for natural history and collection of natural objects
when he joined his day school in 1817 at the age of eight years (Vendramini,
2005). The American Naturalist and Biologist Edward Osborne Wilson (1929- )
became a naturalist at an early age and after injuring his right eye, he learned to
examine insects closely with his left eye. Like A. Russell Wallace, T.H. Huxley
and other British scientists of the time, the English naturalist Henry Walter
Bates (1825-1892) had no formal education in science, and left school aged 12.
He came from a literate middle-class family and taught himself mainly by
reading (like Wallace, Huxley and Herbert Spencer, he was an auto-didact).
English ornithologist John Gould (1804-1881) was the son of a gardener and as
a boy probably had a scanty education. The young Gould started training as a
gardener and was employed under his father who was foreman in the Royal
Gardens of Windsor.
English Biologist Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) was one of the great
autodidacts became perhaps the finest comparative anatomist of the second half
of the nineteenth century. Huxley had little schooling, and taught himself
almost everything he knew. Thomas left school at 10, after only two years of
formal schooling. Later on, as a young adult, he made himself an expert first on
invertebrates, and later on vertebrates, all self-taught (Clodd, 2013). Better
known as the father of genetics, Czech monk Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) lived
and worked on a farm which had been owned by the Mendel family for at least
130 years. During his childhood, Mendel worked as a gardener, studied
beekeeping. English Biologist Sir Julian Sorell Huxley (1887-1975) showed an
early interest in nature and was given lessons by his grandfather, Thomas Henry
Huxley.
19
“As a child, I would often visit places like Chadwick Lakes with
friends in order to just enjoy nature” (Carville: 2010).
Chawla (1998) reports pioneer research by Tanner and Peterson who found that
conservationists were mostly influenced by childhood experiences in natural
areas, frequent contact with habitats and outdoor activities such as family
vacations, childhood play, youth group camps and hunting or fishing (Chawla,
1998: 371-372). Later studies reported were those by Palmer, James and
Gunderson with environmental educators, Peters Grant with volunteer marine
workers, Sward and Chawla with environmental conservation planners, Myers
with undergraduates, McKnight with college seniors of environmental studies,
Sivek and Hungerford with members of fishing, hunting and trapping clubs
(cited in Chawla, 1998: 373-380). In all cases, the subjects were mostly
influenced by childhood outdoor activities in the wilderness, childhood natural
areas, outdoor exposure and positive outdoor experiences of natural areas.
Habitat dioramas may stimulate and encourage this early childhood exploration
of nature and local habitats.
20
These accounts indicate that early experiences with nature develop a love and
interest for living organisms and the natural environment in general. They also
seem to imply a link between childhood exposure to nature and future roles as
biologists and naturalists. Early ‘experiencing’ or ‘engaging with’ nature refers
to direct contact with nature, being inquisitive about anatomical characteristics
and phenomena following observation and noting or touching things. There is
also a sense of wonder about nature. Children need exposure to nature and
need to be taught how to look and find out things. School curricula have a role
and responsibility to provide learning opportunities of this type. I feel that
appreciating nature is so important for the personal enrichment it provides to
the child and enjoyment while viewing biodiversity. If the child is able to
appreciate nature, there is a greater probability he/she will strive to protect it
and avoid activities that harm ecosystems.
21
The fauna living in these habitats include a variety of snails, wide range of
insects, a few crustaceans such as the woodlouse, a few spiders and scorpions, a
few reptiles such as the wall lizard (four sub-species known), many birds most
of which are migratory and a few small sized mammals the largest being the
wild rabbit (Sultana & Falzon, 2002: 23-24). A selection of animal and plant
specimens from these ecosystems are displayed in the habitat dioramas at the
Natural History museum enabling urban dwelling children to become familiar
to a limited extent with the biology of their country.
Originally, the seat of the University and later the palace of Grand Master de
Vilhena (1722-36), the National Museum of Natural History of Malta was
established in 1973. A series of small but life sized habitat dioramas installed in
the museum of natural history in Malta offer a diverse representation of local
habitats and ecosystems. The five dioramas are typical representations of a
rural back yard, a field with rubble wall, a deep valley, a sandy beach and a
fortification. These are snapshots of common Maltese habitats that offer an
occasion to viewers to discover the animals and plants normally inhabiting
these places. Habitat dioramas are three-dimensional museum displays
presenting imitations of biological landscapes. These displays typically show
preserved animals in their natural foreground with freeze-dried or modelled
flora of some form set against a painted background. The diorama’s integrated
montage of animals with their surroundings is a means of bringing natural
history to ‘life’, but at the same time exposing human attitudes toward nature
and so also perform a function in the cultural construction of our world
(Wonders, 2003: 89). The dioramas provide an opportunity to bring the
outside world into children’s minds.
22
1.4 Malta’s natural history dioramas
In outlining the educational rationale behind the dioramas, the curator stated
that the settings were meant for visitors of all ages. One aim was to offer a
showcase of what some typical Maltese habitats have to offer including an
exemplar of the animals and plants that could be encountered in such habitats.
Another aim was to offer an opportunity for free choice observation of unique
museum exhibits representing flora and fauna in local habitats. These dioramas
are constructed conceptual ones and not replications of actual identified places.
According to curator John Borg, active observation of local flora and fauna is
lacking in Maltese society, however I have not seen any evidence to support his
claim. A third aim was to create conservational awareness and environmental
responsibility. His intention was to present an example of a negative human
effect on the local environment. This may be seen in the last diorama that
includes a ‘baked beans’ can, which attracts the intended attention. The curator
acknowledges that this tends to alienate visitors from appreciating the natural
aspect to focus instead on the human effect on habitats.
Learning is embedded within social events and occurs as a person interacts with
people, objects and events in the environment. Viewing a diorama is a social
experience and varies depending on the culture from which the participant hails
and the context and culture in which they are viewed (Tunnicliffe and Scheersoi,
2015). I see dioramas as telling a story to their visitors and story telling is a
social act too. The role of the narrative in dioramas has been reported by
several academics. Dioramas are very well suited to evoke dialogue and
narrative about biodiversity. Cotumaccio (2015) found that by engaging
audiences in narratives about the topics presented in dioramas, facilitators act
as human interfaces between the exhibit’s intended purposes and the visitor’s
interests. Facilitators can create scaffold between the visitor and the diorama
24
content aiding the visitor to understand the content and connect it to their
existing knowledge and interests. Stories about dioramas and their specimens
provide visitors with more ways of making sense of the exhibits. This is a
different type of museum experience that can be more effective than standing in
front of a diorama looking and commenting (Dunmall, 2015). Marandino et al.
(2015) observe that biodiversity dissemination and learning at dioramas
deserves more research and agree with Tunnicliffe (1999) that dioramas are an
underused educational resource. I tend to agree with this too.
Research concludes that the current state of science teaching in primary schools
is not effective. Apart from a lack of resources in schools, Maltese primary
school teachers are reluctant, and in many cases refuse, to do science. They
expect the science peripatetic teachers to do science lessons. The latter say that
the class teachers are rarely present for their science lessons when they call at
the respective schools. Consequently, follow up and continuity is lacking and
some pupils have science only once a month (Chetcuti, 2009). Since the 2009-
10 scholastic year changes have been implemented and primary classes in State
schools have at least two science lessons a month by the science peripatetic
teacher.
25
Malta did not fair well in the latest Trends in International Maths and Science
Survey (TIMSS) of 2011. From fifty participating countries, Malta was placed
28th in Maths (Mullis et al., 2011) and 40th in Science (Martin et al., 2011). In
Maths, nearly all other participating EU countries attained a better placing than
Malta, while in science Malta trails all EU and developed countries. In both
cases, Malta’s result was significantly lower than the centerpoint of the TIMSS
4th grade scale.
The Vision for Science Education in Malta makes no direct reference to local
flora and fauna or to Biology in general. It basically proposes a culture change
in the way science education is done in Malta, but it was not implemented since
it was never made official policy. However, the new government has pledged to
maintain the basic framework and consultations are underway on an
implementation plan.
26
“understanding scientific language; classifying and describing;
posing precise questions; ….using mathematical concepts;
providing synthesis; using scientific apparata, etc.”(NMC, 1999:
99).
The president of the Malta Union of Teachers (MUT), stated that 80% of the
NMC remained unaccomplished (Vella, 2004) and together with it the science
objectives. How much of the curriculum has been implemented would be
difficult to determine and the Minister of Education was prompt in rebutting
the claim (Stagno Navarra, 2004). However, the vast majority of teachers know
that the MUT president is probably right. Excluding a few cosmetic changes,
the status quo has been preserved practically in all the aspects of science
education in Malta since the establishment of the NMC in 1999. The Co-
ordinated Science idea was not well received by the majority of science teachers
and has not yet been implemented. The NMC does not make reference to the
value and need for out-of-school learning experience in science. Dr Paul Pace
of the Faculty of Education is probably right in stating that:
“.....in order to attract more students to science, the way science is
taught is more important than the content itself” (Debono, 2005).
27
explain phenomena and experiences. It also involves a number of
skills and processes by which this knowledge is achieved and
applied. Science is also concerned with the development of attitudes
concerning scientific activity.’ (Department for Quality and
Standards in Education, 2005: 3)
The rationale focuses on the three main aspects of science: knowledge, skills
and attitudes. Knowledge refers to the theories and concepts making up science.
Skills refer to the method of posing questions and carrying out investigations in
science. Attitudes are concerned with the way which scientific knowledge and its
application is evaluated and appreciated together with an understanding of its
limitations. The rationale also recognises the fact that there is no fixed way in
which scientists work, but generally all investigations tend to have aspects of
common processes such as observation, classification, hypothesising, data
collection, interpretation of data and evaluation. The Primary Science
Framework aims to support schools to meet these requirements. It aims to lay
the foundation of knowledge and understanding, and to develop the skills and
attitudes related to science through first hand experience. This foundation is
intended to lead to a deeper progressive understanding of scientific activity,
forming a basis for further study in science at secondary level.
This is the first thesis in Malta on habitat dioramas and their potential in
biological and environmental learning. It is one of very few out of school
undergraduate dissertations and master’s theses, and certainly the only PhD to
date. Very little work on biological and environmental learning at primary
school level has been carried out in Malta and most studies are at secondary
(middle school) level. The curator at the Natural History Museum, Malta
29
confirmed that neither any research on the display area nor any formal
assessment of the diorama’s effectiveness had ever been done before this
doctoral research (Borg, 2010). The research in this thesis is unique in the field,
not least since it was conducted in a micro-island state with its own cultural
context and long colonial history. The pupils had never previously visited the
Natural History Museum in Malta and there is no formal program for museum
visits. A visit depends on the initiative of both teacher and the school or the
ethos of the school. The technique for analysing the drawings and interpreting
the habitat dioramas using the software package Atlas.ti has not been
previously, to my knowledge, encountered in literature. This present research
explores: a) the potential of habitat dioramas as biological models for
visualization of local flora and fauna (Reiss and Tunnicliffe, 1999), b) the
expression of the mental models through drawing (Cox, 1992: 88-91; Rapp and
Kurby, 2008; Reiss & Tunnicliffe, 1999: 142) and c) the potential of habitat
dioramas for learning in Biology. Another unique feature of this thesis is the
theoretical model I present in section 6.5 (pg.224).
Malta with its sparse endemic flora and fauna and over a third of its surface area
occupied by building, offers limited opportunities for engaging with nature.
The current primary school curriculum is not addressing this issue in a
substantial manner. The dioramas can in part remedy the inadequacy of the
primary science curriculum in providing experiences with nature. The habitat
dioramas at the NHM offer another opportunity to children to observe local
flora and fauna and become familiar with the biology of their country’s biota.
30
They are presently an underutilised educational resource. Dioramas become
particularly valuable to the urban community in constructing understanding of
the different habitats and interactions between organisms (Tunnicliffe, 2005:
24).
About two-thirds of the time school age children are awake is spent outside
formal schooling (Braund & Reiss, 2006: 1375; Eshach, 2007: 171). Based on
my experience, I believe that educators tend to overlook, the crucial influences
that out-of-school experiences have on pupils’ knowledge and understandings,
and on their beliefs, attitudes, and motivation to learn. A well-planned field
trip can achieve more than a conventional school science lesson could ever do.
A survey of pupil’s views on improvements to their science curriculum revealed
that trips and fieldwork were their top priority for better school science (Braund
and Reiss, 2004: 11). In the Student Review of the Science Curriculum: Major
Findings (United Kingdom) it was reported that from the 11 possibilities, ‘going
on a science trip or excursion’ was rated as the most enjoyable, although not the
31
most useful and effective, manner of learning (Cerini, Murray and Reiss, 2003:
10). The 2005 study, What did you learn at the museum today? (MLA, 2005)
found that pupils were very enthusiastic about their museum experiences and
confident about their own learning. Most of the pupils (26,791: KS2 and KS3)
in the study enjoyed the day’s visit, learnt some interesting things, thought
museums were good places to learn in a different way to school, said the visit
had given them a better understanding of the subject and said the museum visit
made school work more inspiring. Pupils and teachers also cherished the
emotional engagement that museums allow which is important in stimulating
the attainment of knowledge and understanding as well as the development of
attitudes and values (Hooper-Greenhill et al., 2005: 15-16).
32
Subsidiary questions:
1. What mental models (internal representation) of local animals and plants
do school children hold and how are these expressed in drawing?
2. How far is the mental model modified by the novelty of the museum?
3. Which dioramas are preferred, what captures the children’s attention and
what role does culture play in this? Which species of animal and plant do
children see most?
4. Which changes occur as a pupil progresses through drawing tasks?
5. Are dioramas appropriate as models in biological learning and for gaining
of representational insight?
33
2 Biology and
Dioramas
34
“An ever-growing body of evidence demonstrates that most science
is learned outside of school.”
John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking.
American Scientist.
The chapter starts with presenting the different ideas about the term ‘nature’
and its significance to children. Next I compare the direct experience of natural
settings to that afforded by dioramas, followed by a discussion on how children
interpret animals and plants. The rest is a discussion of museum objects,
natural history dioramas and learning that occurs there.
35
grasslands (Mergen, 2003). Another perception of “nature” is wilderness, the
term covering a wide range of environments in pristine state, while in fact they
are already scarred by generations of misuse. Meinig (1979) argues that even
though different people may look in the same direction at the same time they
cannot see the same landscape. There are at least ten different ways of seeing a
‘landscape’.
Nature is full of sights, sounds, textures, and experiences. The natural world
and the experiences imbedded in nature are readily available to provide hands-
on opportunities that promote growth and development in all of these areas.
Teachers need to provide children with opportunities to experience the
elements of nature that surround them and raise children's comfort level and
awareness of the natural world. Children can begin exploring the backyard and
the school playground, before they embark on a field trip to the woods or a park.
Regardless of how basic a trip may appear to be, interacting with nature opens
up a whole new world for many children (Kupetz and Twiest, 2000).
In nature all five senses are invoked, while at a museum it is mainly sight, and
possibly auditory and/or odour. This is the main shortcoming of natural
history dioramas, being static representations even if they offer depth and
perspective and occasionally sounds and smells. They show natural settings,
but they cannot replace the actual habitat and offer the same experience. What
they can offer is a unique and quite particular experience, as I will show later in
the thesis.
37
in knowledge. All children demonstrated an increase in biological knowledge
as they aged. Knowledge development progressed from just an awareness of an
organ to an understanding that an organ relates to other organs.
Piaget (1929) held that naming in children develops in stages with age. From the
stage where the name of the object is part of it to the stage symbolised by the
discovery that names come from within us and children affirm that they are “in
the head” at age 9-10 (Piaget, 1929: 81-85). When people look at biological
exhibits in a science museum, a botanic garden or a zoo they construct meaning
from what they observe whatever it may be, an animal, a plant or a constructed
artefact, and they label it (Bruner et al. 1956). Young children’s thinking is in
terms of general prototypes within a category. They think of all dogs simply as
‘dogs’ without distinguishing within the class and rarely are they viewed as
animals (Gardner, 1980: 65-66).
When children encounter animals and plants in places such as parks, gardens,
school fields, streets or squares, their home or zoos, farms, nature reserves and
natural history museums, they interpret and try to make sense of what they see.
Tunnicliffe (2002) found that primary school and family visitors to zoos and
museums have a need to identify specimens using non-taxonomic basic terms.
They usually hold a basic concept of the animal, which leads them to make
remarks on size and anatomy. They also comment on behavioural aspects such
as; position in the exhibit, locomotion, feeding and other activities that attract
observer attention such as parental care (Tunnicliffe, 2002: 39). Tunnicliffe
and Reiss (1999) investigated how children aged 5 to 14 years recognize, identify
and group animals. The majority of children gave anatomical rather than
behavioural or habitat reasons for naming and explaining animals. In other
studies with 7-12 year old children, it was found that when making animal
focused comments, they mentioned names, but also behaviour and body part
comments featured prominently (Tunnicliffe and Osborne, 1995: 18;
Tunnicliffe, 1996: 136). At dioramas, young visitors:
1. locate things spontaneously or assisted by signage;
2. identify and describe them spontaneously from own experience,
knowledge and observation;
38
3. interpret through story telling from own knowledge or using museum
information and messages (Tunnicliffe, 2005: 29).
Bell (1981) investigated the concept of animal with 10 to 15 year olds. She found
that the term ‘animal’ appeared to be restricted to the four-legged, large and
terrestrial mammal category. Practically all pupils classified the cow, cat, lion
and elephant as animals. In contrast, only half categorized fish, frog, snail,
snake or whale as animals and very few classified a spider, worm or butterfly as
such (Bell, 1981: 55-56). The results of a study in Malta with 4-5 year olds are in
line with Bell’s findings. The vast majority of Maltese children categorized the
cat, dog, elephant, horse, mouse, pig, sheep and zebra as animals, but just over
half did so for the dolphin, ladybird and spider. The children used appearance
such as four legs, tail and fur, noise production, size and habitat to decide
whether the organism was an animal or not. Huxham et al. (2006) found in the
UK greater knowledge about mammals than about birds and arthropods.
Interestingly, apart from the selected animals, most Maltese children also
mentioned a variety of non-endemic species such as tiger, lion, crocodile,
giraffe, shark and leopard (Tunnicliffe et al., 2008: 217-218). These results
suggest that young Maltese children’s knowledge of local fauna is limited. Local
habitat dioramas may serve to enhance awareness and interest toward local
flora and fauna.
39
Gatt et al. (2007) investigated 4-5 year old children’s knowledge and exposure
to plants, and the conceptual framework used to classify a specimen as a plant.
When asked to mention plants, a third of the pupils in the study did not give a
single name and very few were able to mention more than three examples.
Children most frequently gave the super-ordinate categories ‘flower’, ‘tree’ or
‘plant’ and a few mentioned ‘rose’ and ‘sunflower’. Most commonly mentioned
trees were the orange and the apple followed by lemon. For many pupils one
characteristic sufficed to classify the specimen as a plant. Specimens that fitted
in the mental model were classified as plants; the example of lettuce fitted
because it was green in colour, but cactus did not since it has spines in place of
leaves. The focus is on parts rather than the whole of the plant. Some could not
distinguish between names of plant parts and the plant itself.
In the United States, the emergence of the museum movement and the
development of the natural history museum model followed the trends of the
European museums of the time. In their early beginnings, European natural
history museums were private collections of interesting natural artefacts
40
gathered and identified by members of the elite class. The majority of these
early museum collections were in fact the property of royalty and were
exclusively accessible to individuals belonging to a very privileged class. Later,
museum accessibility was widened and some museums even became public
institutions as a result of increasing democracy (Melber and Abraham, 2002:
45).
The following are some aspects of what the learner does in an informal setting
that are specifically appropriate to museums:
1. Making quick associations between what is already known and new
knowledge, which may yield new relationships.
2. Experiencing the authentic through seeing the real thing or experiencing the
actual phenomena or having access to accurate simulations.
3. Having experiences involving naming, identification, observation,
imagination, fantasy, imitation, role-play, cooperation, demonstration and
discovery.
4. Having no limitations, tests and lectures.
41
Unlike schools, museums tend not to exercise power over their visitors in their
engagement with an exhibition (Kress, 2010: 39). Although every individual’s
museum experience is unique, there are shared human reactions and response
patterns, such as attention, memory, reasoning, feeling and motor skills, that
may be systematically studied and described (Bitgood et al., 1994: 63-64).
The learning experience offered by the museum must consider the type of
audience i.e. families, young children, teenagers, beginning or experienced
learners and people who learn through looking, reading or doing. In the case of
school children, one needs to cater for varying abilities and behavioural
characteristics of different individuals in class (Hooper-Greenhill, 1999: 141-2).
Natural history museums have a dual role. Firstly, they serve as sites for
research and scholarship involving the museum themes focused on the
collections and those who preserve and study them. Secondly, they offer the
public programs, which promote the outer museum and the educational mission
of the institution. In other words, not only are wildlife collections invaluable for
research purposes, but they play a central part in the education of the visiting
public. Little can rival direct interaction with authentic specimens – for the
scientist and the general visitor alike. On mentioning wildlife open spaces
occupied by large predatory animals, such as an African Savannah, come to
mind and therefore museums as stores of artefacts could be considered as the
antithesis of authentic wildlife. On the other hand, through their exhibits they
offer visitors opportunities to see specimens from wildlife that would otherwise
be difficult to encounter.
42
Dioramas are unlike other models in science in that they depict what is already
recognised as plants or animals rather than rendering visible what cannot be
seen such as atomic structure and molecules or seek to physically embody
abstract ideas or complex theories. Traditionally, dioramas present life-sized
organisms as found in nature in exhibits that are for looking at only.
Quinn (2006) advocates the authenticity of habitat dioramas at the AMNH and
states that visitors most frequently respond to the dioramas by asking “Is it
real?” People visit and stop to look at natural history dioramas convinced they
are observing ‘the real thing’ (Quinn, 2006: 8). Do habitat dioramas depict
reality? Natural history dioramas can be quite realistic if they are designed on
an actual habitat and skilfully constructed by capable taxidermists. Dioramas
could be said to be romanticising nature because some idealisation is likely to
have taken place in the re-situation of the real world into an artificial setting.
For Reiss and Tunnicliffe (2007) ‘Dioramas are like soap operas’ in that they
show rare instances occurring on a daily basis. Their distinctive stillness
augments a rather unrealistic character. They have a ‘Garden of Eden’ feel
where animals are ‘inevitably shown in the prime of health and physical fitness’
with no sign of disease or malnutrition (Reiss and Tunnicliffe, 2007: 3-4).
Animals can be grouped together in less space and show various forms of
animal behaviour simultaneously that, even in the species-rich Serengeti, would
be almost impossible to encounter or for a photographer to capture on film.
‘Creating a realistic diorama is exceedingly difficult’ (Morris, 2009: 28). Quinn
(2006) unequivocally believes that the effect of habitat dioramas ‘is so
convincing’, but Morris (2009) holds that ‘convincing dioramas are extremely
difficult to create’.
Visit of collections of animals at zoos, farms and natural history museums are
part of the primary school tradition. Tunnicliffe (1999) categorises sites for
science out of school according to their focus on naturally occurring things-
organisms and artefacts. The naturally occurring exhibits are divided into living
things and geological specimens, with the former being alive, dead or three-
dimensional representations such as robotic models. Natural history museums
being repositories of past and present specimens, present dead, inanimate
organisms. Studies (Tunnicliffe, 1996) show that comments made at zoos on
43
live animals did not vary much from those made at museums on static,
preserved animals. When presented with stuffed animals, pupils use mainly
anatomical cues, rather than behavioural or habitat related cues (Reiss and
Tunnicliffe, 1999: 146).
45
Their approach centers primarily on psychological needs namely, the innate
needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness which are the basis for one
maintaining intrinsic motivation and becoming more self-determined with
respect to extrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000: 65). However, they
naturally recognize that basic need satisfaction ensues in part from engaging in
interesting activities. They at times speak of intrinsically interesting activities,
but when they do so they are really only talking about tasks that, on average,
many people find to be intrinsically interesting (Ryan and Deci, 2000: 56). If
students are free to return to the activity, it is assumed that, if there is no
extrinsic reason to do the task (no reward or no approval), then the more time
they spend with the target task, the more intrinsically motivated they are for it.
Since most of the tasks that educators want their students to perform are
generally not inherently interesting or enjoyable, knowing how to promote more
active and volitional (versus passive and controlling) forms of extrinsic
motivation becomes an essential strategy for successful teaching. Choice and
the opportunity for self-direction appear to enhance intrinsic motivation, as
they afford a greater sense of autonomy. Several studies have shown that
autonomy-supportive (in contrast to controlling) teachers catalyze in their
students greater intrinsic motivation, curiosity, and the desire for challenge
(ibid).
At natural history dioramas children stop, look and interpret what they see,
their attention captured by particular features. Such situational interest is
central to learning, particularly in non-formal learning environments where
46
visitors may be regarded as free learners (Scheersoi, 2009: 10). Dioramas
stimulate situational interest if they evoke emotional responses and provide
different anchor points, which enable visitors with varying individual
backgrounds to relate previous experiences to artefacts observed. Person-
object-engagements with diorama may produce feelings of enjoyment,
involvement and stimulation that are typical emotional aspects of interest-based
activity. Situational interest arises from: recognition of familiar, young or big
animals and the unexpected (Scheersoi, 2009: 12).
The use of animals in biological education has been a field of discussions since
Comenius’ theorem “Lessons should begin with consideration of the real thing,
instead of descriptions with words, after the thing has been shown, the teaching
should follow to explain it” (Klingenberg, 2009: 6). Scientific instruction
cannot replace everyday-experience with animals, which is a significant positive
influence in building up elaborated concepts of animals. This means, that
curricula and especially biological education should cover at least some of the
issues regarding the fauna. It should be emphasized here, that supporting
knowledge acquiring and attitude changing (towards a positive mentality), is
more effective with animals than with other methods. The famous pedagogical
reformer and school founder Christian Gotthilf Salzmann (1744-1811) integrated
animals in his teaching on every opportunity and stated “As a result of my long
time experience, nothing catches children's attention as early (and as much) as
animals” (Klingenberg, 2009: 9).
Museums are distinct as educational institutions chiefly due of the central place
they have assigned to objects as sources of education. Museums put people
immediately in the presence of things, to learn from or through them. (Hein,
2000: 108). Museums are truly educational when they aid visitors to apply what
can be experienced in the museum to the world outside. Visitors bring their
personal history to experience, but that too is framed within culture that teaches
its members how to experience and understand objects informally. To learn
from museums, one must become acculturated to them and to “museum
literacy,” that includes the ability to “read objects” (ibid, pg.110). One of the
unique characteristics of museums and zoos is the presence of objects or
animals. Wakeman (1986) found that live animals were no more effective than
"dried" or video presentations in teaching most concepts. When museum
objects or zoo animals are used, a simple repetition of classroom experiences is
avoided (cited in Bitgood, 1989: 3-6).
49
functional becomes idle; what was private becomes public. Yet the
present condition incorporates the prior state and depends on it for
its own meaning (pg.55).
Curatorial opinions of natural history dioramas revealed the important role this
form of display can play in contemporary museums allowing for multiple
interpretations on numerous levels. Curators acknowledge the ability of
dioramas to reach a wider audience and increase access; ‘It’s actually a great
form of non-literary communication…dioramas have such a major role to play
in communicating without words’ (Paddon, 2009: 26). Dioramas could well be
an old museum technique, but they continue to awe visitors. Exhibit animals,
like those in farms or in the wild, have an apparent fascination for human
beings (Scheersoi, 2009; Tunnicliffe and Scheersoi, 2010). Dioramas, however,
remain very popular attractions and are main attractions in the American
Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York and Canadian Museum of
Nature in Ottawa (Insley, 2007:33). Steve Quinn, (AMNH) believes that the
popularity of natural history dioramas is secured and states:
50
I believe the reason they are so popular is that they evoke the same
emotional response to viewing wildlife in nature. It’s the same
epiphany that occurs when one experiences beauty and wonder in
the natural world (Insley, 2007:35).
Awed at their scientific fidelity and the subtle mastery of their painted
backdrops and expressive taxidermy, the new generation of museum
professionals is snubbing the notion that the diorama is an old-fashioned 19th-
century anachronism. Habitat dioramas today have a unique conservational
significance. Naturalists now accept that dioramas are venerable exhibits that
represent pristine habitats at present suffering from overdevelopment and
environmental pollution. An increasing number of the mounted creatures sealed
behind the glass are now extinct and others are on the global list of endangered
species. Examples are some avian species found in the passenger pigeon display
in the Birds of New York State exhibition of the American Museum of Natural
History. The museum’s president, Ellen V. Futter, described dioramas as the
earliest forays into virtual reality and valuable windows on lost ecosystems,
authentic snapshots that show, in dramatic terms, the quality of our loss
(Collins, 2003).
51
included artificial plants and painted backgrounds that rapidly became a
popular place of enjoyment and attracted more than 80,000 people in its first
few months (Coe, 1986:3). In 1784, Charles Wilson Peale opened his celebrated
collection in the United States in Philadelphia and remained for 70 years. To
Peale, who was a painter, it was natural to conceive of the idea of displaying
birds in their natural habitat presented against painted landscapes in his glass-
fronted cases. Peale was dedicated to public education and wanted to render his
exhibits attractive and systematically arranged. A hundred years later, the
British Museum developed the technique of presenting mounted birds in life-
like poses surrounded by artificial props to simulate their natural habitat
(Wonders, 1993).
Known as the ‘father’ of modern taxidermy, Carl Akeley began the tradition of
innovative exhibits dubbed “The Milwaukee Style” after starting his career at the
Public Museum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Completed in 1890, Akeley's muskrat
colony is considered to be the museum world's first total habitat diorama,
notwithstanding that others had included props and backgrounds in cases
holding taxidermy specimens (Trumbull, 2006:3).
Along with Akeley, two other noted taxidermists William T. Hornaday, director
of the American Museum of Natural History in 1911 and F. A. Lucas, director of
the New York Zoological Park in 1896, were the chief architects of the habitat
group/diorama movement in United States. In the mid-1880s the American
Museum of Natural History displayed the first bird groupings, surrounded by
lifelike leaves and flowers made from wax. The curator of ornithology at the
AMNH Frank Chapman (Collins, 2003) is thought to have pioneered the
modern scientific approach to dioramas in North America. In 1901 the museum
installed a series songbird exhibits in the Hall of North American Birds in very
detailed and realistic nesting situations with painted backdrops. These displays
were created under the direction of Chapman and were so well received that
other exhibits on a larger and more elaborate scale, such as the popular Egret
Group and Pelican Group, were soon to be completed. Egrets and Pelicans were
severely threatened at the time and the exhibits were intended to convey a
strong conservation message (Wonders, 1993). In the same year that Chapman
completed his earlier bird exhibits, Carl Akeley completed his four-seasons
52
Virginia Deer Group at The Field Museum in Chicago. A contemporary article in
Time magazine praised Carl Akeley's Hall of African Mammals at the American
Museum of Natural History for its "...zoo-like panoramas" (Time 1942 cited in
Coe, 1986:3).
The great period of museum dioramas and habitat groups had begun and would
last for the next 40 years until World War II. The popularity of dioramas among
museum directors, if not the public, diminished due to the great expense
involved with their creation. This contributes to discourage curators from
constructing new dioramas that so periodically come into and out of fashion as,
indeed, does the highly skilled artistry of taxidermy (Tunnicliffe and Reiss,
2007:1). Carnegie Museum of Natural History at Pittsburgh and Peabody
Museum of Natural History at Yale are examples where diorama collections
maintain their renowned status. Denver Museum of Nature and Science also has
a great collection of dioramas. The natural history museums in Edinburgh and
Malta have both recently installed brand new habitat dioramas.
Some dioramas are over a century old, but they are still much appreciated for
their importance in contributing to visitor’s understandings of conservation and
taxonomic biology (Scheersoi and Tunnicliffe, 2009). Dioramas that have been
in place for many years could still be useful since these show past activities that
reflect realities of our times, such as past human polluting activities and global
warming or diminishing wildlife (Insley, 2008:30-31). Habitat dioramas have a
53
potential longevity since they present a natural setting that changes slowly or is
perceived by visitors to be preserved as shown. It might be the case that the
organisms could be extinct and their environment substantially depleted and
can thus act as records of actual habitat such as Akeley’s African Dioramas at
New York.
54
Kool, 1988; Piqueras et al., 2008; Reiss and Tunnicliffe, 2007; Scheersoi, 2009;
Tunnicliffe, 2002, 2005 and 2007). At dioramas, learning occurs through
imagery in the iconic mode, which is a ‘more concrete way of learning’ (Hooper-
Greenhill, 1994: 144). These displays potentially provide precious opportunities
for education in museums (Paddon, 2009: 26). Discussions that take place at
the dioramas embody basic science processing skills: observing,
communicating, classifying, inferring, and hypothesizing. Skilfully constructed
natural history dioramas can still provide a significant opportunity for
fundamental acquisition of science knowledge (Stern, 2009: 15). The habitat
diorama played a leading role ‘as a tool for science education’ in achieving the
AMNH’s ‘mission and focus as an education institution’ (Quinn, 2006: 10).
55
area is occupied by building. There are no zoos or major animal parks. The
only places where live animals can be seen on display are commercial farms, a
petting farm, falconry, a small bird park and one or two public places that have
a lama and a kangaroo.
In such a situation, dioramas are particularly valuable for the urban community
to be able to see and possibly understand the diverse habitats with the various
organisms that live within (Tunnicliffe, 2005:30). ‘At their best they are one of
the most powerful techniques for emotional access and effective learning’
(Insley, 2007: 33). Habitat dioramas can serve as a unique and powerful science
education resource and unrivalled as a tool in biological education mainly
because:
‘The organism can be viewed, unlike the situation in zoos, in
particular where animal may be hiding or off display. Moreover,
the organisms are shown in an accurate simulation of their natural
surroundings enabling information and concepts about
interrelationships between both organism and their habitat to be
made’ (Tunnicliffe, 2005:30).
School children of all ages learn more about animals and plants from the people
closest to them such as their family and friends and out-of-school observation,
than they do from schools, books, television and other media recognise (Carrier
Martin 2003:51, Reiss and Tunnicliffe, 1999:14, Tunnicliffe, 2006:99). Places
such as natural history museums, botanical gardens, zoos and nature reserves
as well horticultural gardens and farms, have a central role to play in learning
about the organism and their interrelationships. Visits to collections of
organisms at such places are also part of the primary school tradition.
“Natural history dioramas are an exceptionally effective medium
for learners to acquire elements of biodiversity information such as
the habitats of particular animals, interrelationships of organisms
as well the attributes which define their names and hence their
taxonomy” (Tunnicliffe, 2007: 7).
56
management officials enticed by effective technological innovations. Dioramas
are a powerful potential tool in science education and should be developed as
such (Tunnicliffe, 2009: 20). Dioramas have great potential for learning in
Biology, particularly in aspects of biodiversity, ecological relationships and
ecosystem ecology.
When properly designed, dioramas allow lone visitors and small groups to carry
their own interests to the exhibit and to connect with them in a way that
provides a measure of control (Tunnicliffe and Reiss, 2007:1). Through their
‘stillness’, dioramas offer opportunities to “stand and stare” and serve as a focus
for biological understanding in an out-of-school environment. Dioramas
potentially motivate visitors to stay longer at an exhibit and to facilitate their
understanding of the object’s functions, meanings or associations. Visitors may
also relate their previous experiences to the scenes and artefacts presented in
the diorama, which thus become ‘appealing, invite exploration and therefore
facilitate learning’ (Scheersoi and Tunnicliffe, 2009). Research in natural
history museums (United Kingdom, Germany and Malta) indicates that young
animals, big or dangerous animals and unexpected settings particularly attract
visitor attention.
57
3 Theoretical
Concepts
58
The chapter starts with a discussion of constructivism and social constructivism
and their relation to learning about nature. I then consider informal learning in
science and its relation to museum learning and the potential of dioramas as
tools for biological learning. Children’s drawings are of crucial importance and
so I provide a comprehensive consideration to the concept of mental model, and
the development and cultural aspect of drawing. The concept of visualization in
science is also treated and drawing as a means of probing understanding. The
second part of the chapter deals with informal learning, the dynamics of
museum visits and field trip preparation, theories of perception, visualization in
science and mental model. The chapter concludes with a brief review of the
existing interpretation models and a detailed discussion of the chosen Activity
Theory on which I base my novel Interpretative Model presented in chapter 6.
59
individual and social construction under the influence of social and cultural
practices (Jaworski, 1996: 6).
Perhaps Falk and Dierking (2000) offer the most explicit combination of the
two theoretical perspectives in their Contextual Model of Learning (CML),
which states that learning is personally, socially, and physically situated. I will
highlight the basic tenets of constructivism and socio-culturalism.
3.1.1 Constructivism
Theories of learning are mainly informed by whether reality and all knowledge
of it is revealed to, not invented by, the observer (Realism) or whether
knowledge is thought to consist of ideas constructed in the mind
(Constructivism) (Hein, 1999: 73). The term constructivism currently features
in a wide range of educational literature and it has been given an array of
different interpretations. In summary, constructivism is based on the notion
that each individual constructs a unique picture of the world. The person must
go through a mental process to be able to interpret and make sense of
surroundings (Gatt and Vella, 2003: 4). The constructivist approach strives to
develop the personal ideas of children (Driver, 1983). The meaning and
understanding constructed may vary widely as influenced by background,
experience, interests and knowledge that visitors bring to the experience
(Anderson, 2012: 17).
Despite their differences and disagreement about what the term denotes,
various proponents of constructivism share a common heritage in Piaget’s
theory. Science educators are increasingly adopting constructivism as the basis
for research and curricular recommendations. For Piaget coming to know
involves the successive detachment from one’s own subjective perceptions so
that an abstract representation of reality may be constructed. This lack of any
consideration of human subjectivity in the process of construction is considered
to be a major shortcoming in Piaget’s Theory. Critics have taken serious
exception to Piagetian ‘progressive decentration’ and argue that knowledge is
socially constructed (Leach and Scott: 2003: 92; Lemke, 2001: 298; O’Loughlin,
1992: 793;).
‘Furthermore, they argue that knowing is a dialectical process that
takes place in specific economic, social, cultural, and historical
contexts’ (O’Loughlin, 1992: 799).
The concepts taught to primary children need to be relevant to everyday life and
their experiences should be such that the children can be actively involved in the
generation of their learning. Dioramas may be studied from a constructivist and
social constructivist perspective. Children construct their own personal
knowledge, but they also construct knowledge as they interact with museum
exhibits as a group.
3.1.3 Socioculturalism
L. S. Vygotsky’s thoughts are at the core of the sociocultural perspective and to
him all learning was social. He meant social in the sense that ideas and
concepts are often mediated by more experienced learners; that learning takes
place in a context which may well be social in origin; that learning builds on
previous learning; and that learning takes place primarily through cultural and
psychological tools (Smidt, 2009: 14). Vygotsky’s first principle is based on the
assumption that mental processes cannot be understood when taken out of their
original social context. His second principle is that individuals’ psyches are
fusions of their social interactions.
Lave (1988) and Wertsch (1991) both presented their theoretical perspective on
the concept of teaching and learning as socioculturally situated activities. Lave
argues that meaning making is a dialectical interaction between person, activity
and setting in a given context. This is a form of constructivism that underlines
the subjectivity, the sociocultural positioning and the intrinsically dialectical
nature of the process of acquiring knowledge. This theory has the power to
address issues such as cultural diversity, power, context, subjectivity, and social
transformation that are all beyond the reach of Piagetian constructivism
(O’Loughlin, 1992: 810).
Drawing on Vygotsky and Bakhtin, Wertsch argues that the central link between
the thinking of the person and the influence of the social, cultural, historical,
and institutional setting in which the person lives is the mediational means the
person uses to engage in the construction of meaning. For Wertsch (1991), as for
Lave, the person is not seen as a decontextualized individual, but reasoning is
62
conceived to be an inherently social and cultural process of meaning making. He
argues that it is firstly social because the development of understanding is
necessarily dialogical and requires interchange of ideas, and secondly culturally
framed because any frames of reference we bring to bear, and any language
forms we choose to use, are sociocultural in origin, and come to us burdened
with their share of culturally laden significances.
The study of mediated action deals with how humans use cultural tools
(mediating tools) when they are involved in various forms of action. The
1 A mediated action is defined as a social action taken with or through a mediational means (cultural
63
cultural tools may have various forms such as simple mnemonics, like marks on
a stone, to natural language and computers. The kind of action involved may be
socially distributed or carried out by individuals. At the heart of analyses of
mediated action is an irreducible tension between cultural tools, on the one
hand, and agents' active uses of them, on the other. In understanding mediated
action, it is not the participant that is of interest, nor the tool that they are using,
but the complex, dynamic interplay between the two that is at the heart of the
sociocultural approach (Wertsch, 1998).
Students and teachers need to understand how science and science education
are always a part of larger communities and their cultures, including the sense
in which they take sides in social and cultural conflicts that extend far beyond
the classroom (Lemke, 2001: 301; O’Loughlin, 1992: 816).
64
drawing, many barriers to the adequate support of drawing for young children
remain. There is a lack of adequate frameworks for examining drawing and the
drawing process. Two dominant discourses underpin our understanding and
responses to drawing: one derives from Piaget’s developmental learning theory
and the other from aesthetics. Neither seems to serve us well and a Vygotskian
socio-constructionist framework might be more appropriate to help us
understand young children’s drawings. Piaget proposed a consistent, universal,
sequential progression in children’s drawing over which the adult had little
influence. His developmental framework is based on such things as “draw a
person” tests as benchmarks for children’s cognitive development. It is argued
that such ‘disembedded’ analyses of children’s drawings do not effectively show
the intentions of the child or the social and cultural context in which the
drawing was done.
The aesthetics semantic belongs to the realm of art professionals and while this
lens might be applied to young children’s drawing it often denies the contexts
and the intentions of the children. Aesthetics doesn’t address the various
problem-solving and meaning-making activities that are inherent in the
drawing process by young children (Brooks, 2009: 320). Developmental
research on drawings is extensive, but there is minimal presence in the
sociocultural literature (Phillips, 2011: 109).
If we examine drawing from the Vygotskian perspective, the pencil and paper
are historically and culturally developed tools or artefacts used by humans in
the mediated action of drawing, which means interacting with the social and
physical world. The visual, observed world is external, but when we see,
experience, and understand it, we can internalize or learn it by drawing. In art
education, but even more so in the school subject of science, observational
drawing is a well-established activity, reflecting the accurate visual study and
drawing process of trees, flowers, birds, and human organs (Scott Frisch, 2011:
34).
65
thinking through their drawing. We might also begin to better understand how
the visualization of ideas and concepts through drawing can support young
children’s scientific ideas and higher mental processes (Brooks, 2009: 323).
Other factors such as motivation, interest, social context and assessment are
required to distinguish between three types of learning: formal, informal, and
non-formal. Non-formal learning may occur in a structured and planned
manner in places, institutions and situations, such as museums, outside the
66
scope of formal and informal education. Motivation is typically intrinsic to the
learner and mediated by an educator or institution official. Informal learning is
unstructured and spontaneous, and normally distinguished from the other two
in that there is no authority figure or mediator (Eshach, 2007: 173). It is
recognised that the public continuously acquires science information across the
day and throughout their lives. School-aged children utilise a wide range of non-
school sources for constructing their science understanding. While still primary
school focused, NSTA has recognised the importance that free-choice learning
plays in science education. It is also a sign of the growing awareness that public
science education occurs not only in schools, but also museums, science centres,
zoos, aquariums, on television, radio, the internet, hobbies and social activities,
and various community settings and situations (Falk, 2008: 245).
Learning opportunities are not limited to the time spent in school, but also
occur on weekdays and weekends, morning, afternoon and evenings. Free-
choice learning is by no means exclusive to the non-school environment. Good
classroom teachers understand the importance of providing students with
choice and control over their learning. The strength of informal education
programs is their emphasis on free-choice learning, active engagement of
learners in the scientific process and promotion of inquiry. Their weaknesses
are mainly the lack of follow-through and commitment to long term, extended
investigations. Informal learning programs normally do not allow learners to
continuously build upon their learning over time (Eshach, 2007: 174). Table 3.1
that follows presents the distinguishing features of formal, non-formal and
informal learning.
67
Table 3-1. Formal, non-formal and informal learning (Eshach, 2007).
There was concern about the crossover between formal and informal learning
since informal learning practitioners felt that the formal system had essentially
failed and that partnerships between the two systems could force informal
learning to transform itself into schooling (Crane, 1994: 189).
Museums may serve as venues for non-formal as well as informal learning for
children, adults and senior citizens alike. School visits to museums are
opportunities for non-formal learning where the teachers and museum staff
exert some control over the pupils in a prearranged and structured setting.
Ideally the pupils should be free to experience the museum exhibits, as they
desire, but without chaos.
68
understand the relationship between formal and informal learning and how
cultural knowledge, values, and models could impact on such learning (Medin
and Atran, 2008: 141).
The nature of science and how it works goes beyond the simple exploration of
content specific concepts and regurgitation of scientific facts (McComas in
Melber and Abraham, 2002: 49). Falk and Dierking (2000) have pioneered a
model that aids in understanding how learning occurs in informal settings. This
model can be applied to situations where individuals have an element of free
choice in what they learn. They called it the contextual model that combines
the personal, sociocultural and physical contexts and how these interact in
learning. The personal context comprises the four aspects; intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation, personal interest, constructivist notion of learning and
expression of learning within appropriate contexts. The sociocultural context
should be considered since our culture influences the way we act in and respond
to various learning situations. The ways in which we are brought up impart
social norms that set expectations and rules on our behaviour and learning. The
sociocultural context of learning depends on the level of engagement with
exhibits that is principally affected by the museum environment, or so called
physical context. The sights, sounds and smells encountered in museums have
a significant impact on the type of experience and so the level of learning that
takes place (Braund, 2004: 115-117). The sociocultural context embraces two
factors; ‘within-group sociocultural mediation’ and ‘facilitated mediation by
others’. Social groups in museums relay on each other as instruments for
interpreting information, strengthening shared beliefs and making meaning.
Socially mediated learning is not limited to the individual’s own social group,
but can also occur with strangers who are considered to be knowledgeable. (Falk
and Dierking, 2000: 138-139).
69
In this research, children observe habitat dioramas and interact with them in
peer groups of four to five pupils. Their peers and the cultural milieu they bring
with them to the museum mediate the interaction with the exhibits. Research
with family groups has produced much of the knowledge about learning
behaviours of children during museum visits. Adults tend to set the agendas of
visits with children according to what they think their children’s interests are.
The OFSTED (2008) report on English schools states that ‘One of the
attractions of learning outside the classroom was that everyone behaved well
because they were motivated and active’ (pg.22). However it would seem that
this also depended on the preparation and control of the individual class teacher.
When learning outside the classroom is an integral part of the curriculum, this
alleviates the demands on staff for planning of educational objectives and the
practicalities of the visit (OFSTED, 2008: 22-24).
A study by Benz (1962) recognized that, ‘part of the pupils’ time was given to
“looking around,” perhaps at the expense of the knowledge of the geology they
were on the trip to acquire’ (pg. 49). The results of the study by Kutoba and
Olstad (1991) showed that ‘novelty-reducing preparation’ results in increased
on-task exploratory behavior and greater cognitive learning in boys, but that the
novelty-reducing treatment was not effective on girls’ (pg. 231). It is suggested
that repeat visits significantly improve learning (Falk and Balling, 1980).
70
Most effectively managed schools and colleges in England included learning
outside the classroom as an integral part of a well-planned curriculum
(OFSTED, 2008: 4). Dierking (1991) argues against a sharp distinction between
‘formal’ learning that occurs in schools and ‘informal learning’ that occurs in
museums. In-school and out-of-school learning experiences are at the ends of a
continuum that requires bringing classroom science and everyday life closer
together. The continuum perspective moves away from the traditional
dichotomy of formal versus informal learning and is more in-line with Falk’s
(cited in Tal and Morag, 2007) idea of choice opportunity, since the faculty to
choose what to learn is not exclusive to non-school environments (Tal and
Morag, 2007: 749).
Students rarely discuss ideas and get little time to freely explore the exhibit. A
general conclusion from two studies is that the vast majority of museum visits
were guide-centered and lecture-oriented activities (Cox-Petersen et al., 2003:
215, Tal and Morag, 2007: 766). During a school fieldtrip students have little
control over the day’s agenda. The teacher plays a vital role in a museum visit
and the educational worth of a museum fieldtrip may be heavily dependent on
the instructional strategies of the teacher leading it (Kisiel, 2006: 435). The
visit will be meaningful when students are encouraged to investigate exhibits on
their own and in small groups (Falk and Dierking, 2000; Hein, 1998).
Stronck (1983) found that students on the unguided tours found the museum to
be more exciting, less confusing, better and more useful. Although the majority
(50%) of students preferred a docent as their teacher when visiting the museum,
a large group (24%) of students preferred to teach themselves in the museum
without any assistance. Students also wished that they could touch and feel
more things (Buttigieg, 2001: 55).
In the England OFSTED (2001) established a set of national standards for out of
school experiences intended to act as a “set of ‘outcomes’ that providers should
aim to achieve” (pg. 3). Together with achieving the National Standards, the
providers are also expected to follow a set of regulations given in the same
document. The OFSTED (2008) report entitled Learning Outside the
Classroom, evaluated the impact of out of classroom learning in 12 primary, 10
71
secondary, a special school, a pupil referral unit and 3 colleges. The report
gives recommendations on how schools could be better supported and
encouraged in enriching the quality of out-of-class learning and on how the
schools could provide meaningful out-of-class experiences for all their students.
Teachers could feel uncomfortable and unconfident in out-of-class settings if
they lack the basic scientific knowledge and understanding needed to support
the pupils (Buttigieg, 2001: 56).
‘In the best primary visits, staff, parents and other volunteers
supervising the pupils were given clear guidance about the expected
learning and how to promote it, for example by asking key
questions. However, this was not always done well, with the result
that the focus on learning in the minds of adults and pupils was
diluted’ (OFSTED, 2008, pg.15).
All learners involved in the survey found working away from the classroom
‘exciting’, ‘practical’, ‘motivating’, ‘refreshing’ and ‘fun’. Following a class lesson,
pupils became animated and involved once they had the opportunity to conduct
their own research outside the classroom (OFSTED, 2008: pg.10). A study
carried out at Dar il-Lunzjata science center in Gozo highlights the pupils’
enthusiasm, involvement, quest for knowledge, desire to try things, enjoyment
and excitement during a visit to the center (Buttigieg, 2001: 55).
Teacher involvement can vary dramatically from teachers disappearing into the
cafeteria after delivering their charges to the museum staff to active engagement
in all phases of the program (Kisiel, 2006: 435; Price and Hein, 1991: 512).
Various studies show that most teachers do not plan the visit, are not aware of
the program of the day, and do not understand their role as important for the
success of the visit. The majority of elementary school teachers were either
passive or provided only technical help (Tal and Steiner in Tal and Morag, 2007:
766; Tal et al., 2005: 932). The majority of the teachers fail to identify the
reasons for their visit. One reason for this is the fact that most of the teachers
are sent by someone else at school to supervise their students. Another reason
could be that teachers perceive the field trip as a fun event and not as a
meaningful educational experience. On other hand, committed teachers may
face pedagogic dilemmas. In one case, a teacher was dubious whether or not
she should go back to get the boys who had wandered ahead or just let things
happen as they did. She described a conflict between a desire to teach, and
wanting the students to see the museum as a fun, informal place where you can
learn (Kisiel, 2006: 446).
Organizing a field trip can be such a daunting task for teachers that the
pedagogical aspect of a ‘museum’ visit may suffer (Storksdieck, 2001: 8).
Teachers struggle with time constrains, logistical issues, student responsibility
and pressures of accountability that all dampen their willingness to provide
proper preparation and post-visit activities (Tal et al., 2005: 921). Regardless of
cause, the apparent effectiveness of teacher strategy is clearly impacted by time
(Kisiel, 2006: 447).
73
referring to topics and ideas discussed in school; and (c) no mediation, where
neither the guide nor the teacher made an attempt to help the students in their
assignment or to connect the lecture to the school science (Tal and Morag,
2007: 763).
74
Gibson’s direct perception theory challenges the constructivist view that sensory
inputs are too impoverished to mediate perception and so the perceiver must
add to them. The essence of this constructivist paradigm is that perception of
the world is essentially indirect; information must be added to the incoming
stimuli before a final perceptual response is obtained. Direct perception
theorists disagree that awareness is only indirect and that perception is
mediated by internal representations. Unlike Gregory’s and Gestalt theorists,
Gibson sees real movement as a vital part of perception. He concluded that
visual perception is extremely accurate. The essence of this theory is that under
rural environment, there is a richness and structure in the various stimuli
available to an observer, such that the world can be specified. Gibson did not
think that his theory was applicable to perception of cultural artefacts (Gordon,
2004: 180). Marr’s computational approach is that perception proceeds as an
information-processing system and that this system is organised into successive
stages: 1) the image; the retinal processing, 2) the primal sketch; raw intensity
values of the visual image, 3) 2½ D sketch; a ‘picture’ of the world begins to
emerge, and 4) 3D model representation; the perceiver has by now obtained a
model of the real external world (ibid pg193). The neurophysiological approach
is a major development using MRI technology. It’s weaknesses are: 1) tendency
toward reductionism and 2) language remains ‘within’ the organism. Little
attention is afforded to the nature of the environment from which stimuli arise.
Explanations at the neuro-physiological level cannot deal with the subjective
nature of seeing. As Marr and others have argued, knowing that a neural system
does something does not tell us why is does it. Neuroscience suggests that the
human perceptual system is divided into two kinds, one dedicated to discover
where things are, while the other discovers what things are. Whichever way
environmental stimuli are perceived and represented in the CNS, externally
they are represented in drawing, three-dimensional activities, dance-like and
musical actions (Matthews, 2003:25).
In conclusion, Empiricism has to date been the most successful general theory
of perception and it has dominated experimental psychology for over a century.
This approach is based on the main belief that perception is a constructive
process. However, are stimuli really so impoverished that the information
associated with them needs to be supplemented by memory and reasoning?
75
Human perception occurs in two situations; a) Natural: surfaces and textures,
solid objects, rich patterns of multisensory movement and change, and b)
Human Culture: language symbols and 2D patterns as representations of 3D
objects. The way in which perception engages with artefacts of our culture may
differ importantly from the way in which it deals with the natural world. This
becomes relevant to this research since it deals with museum artefacts,
conceptual habitat dioramas, which are representations of typical local habitats
(Gordon, 2004: 214).
What is being said can be followed and related to people talking or reading a
book, or watching television if we can relay on a working model, a schema, in
our minds that relates to what is being said. In novel situations, where no
working model exists, talking and reading will not suffice. In learning new
things, experience and action are required to construct a model (Hooper-
Greenhill, 1999: 143). Dioramas may be used as a model to understand nature.
77
attention may be revealed from the child’s representations of the authentic
specimens as constructed through the interrelation between the real object,
mental model and the representation (figure 3-1).
Figure 3-1. Representation Construction (Reiss & Tunnicliffe, 1999)
Real Object
In another paper, the same authors note that the nature of observational
practice is not well understood; even through it is one of the major
underpinnings of all science processes. They also point out that meticulous
observing and drawing of biological specimens was traditionally considered as
an objective in itself, but did not always lead to creative thinking about the
organism and its biology (Tomkins and Tunnicliffe, 2001: 792).
Corrado Ricci (1887) held that children’s drawings are not an attempt to show
the actual appearance of objects, but are expressions of the children’s
knowledge about them. Later Kerschensteiner (1905) argued that children
78
include in drawings the main features of a concept belonging to a particular
class of objects. Frequently children tend to ignore details and orientation and
simply draw their usual scheme or formula for that type of object.
Kerschensteiner repeated Luquet’s claim “children draw what they know rather
than what they see”. The main facts or features of the object are held in a
mental model and when asked to draw, children do so from the internal model
(Cox, 1992: 88-91). Freeman (1980) states that “the child draws what he
knows” should be replaced by “the child knows more than he draws” (cited in
Krampen, 1991: 42).
While forming this internal model, children engage in a creative mental act
rather than copy the object. By looking at the drawing, we can infer which
features of the object are important to the child and which are less so. The
content of drawing or writing is always a selection. It is neither possible nor
required to represent all that is observed, known, remembered or visualised.
Instead a drawing has to be considered as a symbolic language that can convey
the meaning of a person’s thinking, even if the drawing does not reproduce the
thinking like a photo (Albery, 2000: 219). What is selected represents the
person’s immediate interest where features are not shown in their entirety (Cox,
2005: 75; Mavers, 2009: 265). Young children normally resort to intellectual
realism when they are concerned that they wish their drawing to look realistic.
Older children seem to understand that the purpose of the task is visual realism
and are therefore more likely to draw what they see. Studies on child’s internal
model have taught us not to assume that children’s drawings are print-outs of
the internal representations that underpin the topics drawn (Jolley, 2010: 153).
Children can pick up ideas from each other in the intimate situation at their
benches that gives rich possibilities to look at each other’s drawings and copy
visual-graphic elements (Hopperstad, 2010: 447). According to Kress (1997)
children never ‘merely copy’ (p. 37) and that meaning-making is always a
transformative process even when copying.
Why should children be criticised for drawing images not as they really look?
How do things ‘really’ look anyway? Such criticism seems to imply that there is
just one true reality that exists independently of the modes of representation
used to describe it. Representation is a human construct rather than being a
79
copy of reality that exists independently of human forms of representation (Cox,
1992: 179).
Gardner proposed the idea of spatial intelligence, a set of skills and abilities
connected with the visual world. Although it is considered to be an inherent
capacity, the development of spatial intelligence depends on culturally
determined factors. From birth, children encounter a wealth of information out
of which they need to make sense and build their own system of understanding.
Visits to places such as museums could offer children the opportunity to
practice spatial skills that may be evaluated in drawings they produce. Jean
Piaget described a scenario for the development of spatial intelligence as part of
his studies on the development of a child’s mind across different cognitive
domains. Piaget defined the basic elements, which characterise the skills
connected with spatial intelligence. He followed the principal stages defined by
Luquet (synthetic incapacity, intellectual realism and visual realism) while
studying the development of space perception in children’s drawings. The new
scientific interest in the development of the mind resulted in a growing interest
in children’s drawings by educators and scientists from different disciplines.
80
children’s development and learning is that children neither start any self-
learning nor play any significant role in the process. This is the notion that
children are simply empty vessels which education will fill with knowledge. A
variation of this is that children learn by just copying adults. Matthews (2003)
holds that these views are both misleading and believes that child development
involves an interaction between what unfolds in the child and what occurs
within the environment. In the light of this, we should not overlook the special
role that people have in providing those types of experiences, which foster and
promote this development (Matthews, 2003: 21). Among the majority of
drawing psychologists, art educationists and early years educationists there is
an inclination to consider representation as a repeat presentation of prior
experience. This idea is linked with a strong tendency to think of representation
as synonymous with ‘picturing’. Granted that representation does frequently try
to make sense of previous experience, rather than being a copy, it is a dynamic,
constructive act that actually shapes the experience itself (ibid: 24).
When a child is asked to draw an object, the child normally puts pencil to paper
and produces an image of the requested object even if this is not in sight. Does
the drawing represent an image held in the brain or does it stand for the object
in nature? This is a main question that rises from a semiotic approach. In
semiotics, a sign process starts with a ‘material entity’ that is present to an
interpreter in a ‘channel’. The channel might be given by a sensory modality,
which for a child drawing could be looking at various forms of the object or
pictures of it in various media. In semiotics, the perceived meaning carrier is
known as the ‘signifier’, while the meaning arising from interpreting the
signifier is known as the ‘signified’.
Figure 3-2. Semiotic model of perception (Krampen, 1991)
81
Peirce (1965) mentions three types of relationships between the sign and the
object for which it stands, namely: iconic, indexical and symbolic. An iconic
relationship occurs when the sign and the object have common properties such
as in a portrait of a person. An indexical relationship is realised if a sign
becomes a sign only in temporal or spatial contact with its object such as in a
thermometer. A symbolic relationship between the sign and its object is
arbitrary, based on convention and the user’s learning (Krampen, 1991: 13).
In contrast to Krampen, both Peirce and Piaget do not distinguish between the
material object external to the mind and the perceived object inside the mind
(signifier). At the perceptual level (stage 1), the signifier comprises sense data
constructed from different views of, or contacts with, the same object. The
signified is the fixed object seen from its different perspectives. At the
imaginary level (stage 2), the signifier is the symbolic representation of the
mental image of the object. The signified is the internalized forgery of the
perceptual activity required for understanding an object in its intricacy. At the
conceptual level (stage 3), the signifier is the sign, or rather, the verbal or
mathematical representation of objects or processes. The signified is the
internal operation on symbolic objects aggregated in classes or as spatial
systems. The 14 year old individual normally reaches the logical operations
stage which means that he or she is capable of operating at all three levels:
perception, imagination and conception (Krampen, 1991: 19).
In his theories on drawing, Piaget closely follows the work of Luquet. Piaget
and Inhelder (1967) integrated Luquet’s phases into their own schemes of
children’s drawing development and they describe three stages:
83
1. First Stage (I; up to the age of 4) also known as ‘synthetic incapacity’.
Here the child starts to embrace simple topological relationships in
drawings.
2. Second Stage (II; 4-8 years) also known as ‘intellectual realism’. This
refers to the fact that children draw everything they know even if it is not
visible.
3. Third Stage (III; 8-9 years) also known as ‘visual realism’. This stage
appears quite late because it entails the concept of projective and metric
space that presumes advanced concrete mental operations. Drawings
begin to amalgamate perspective, proportion and distance.
Later research has confirmed and provided evidence to support Luquet’s claim
that a shift occurs from intellectual to visual realism around the age of 7 to 8
years (Cox, 2005: 73). However, intellectual realism may coexist with rather
than be replaced by visual realism, without an abrupt transition from one to the
other. Further more, Luquet’s observation that most people forsake intellectual
in favour of visual realism by no means signifies that visual realism is superior
since there is nothing wrong or childish about intellectual realism (ibid: 87).
Cox found that 3 to 4 year olds can recognise that real objects are not pictures; 6
to 8 year olds regard colour photos of the real objects, line drawings, drawings
of abstract irregular shapes and complex abstract forms as pictures; while 9 t0
10 year olds demonstrate a distinct change in child’s judgement of drawings in
the sense that realistic drawings of objects are regarded as pictures but not
abstract or nonsense object drawings (Cox, 2005: 10). Intellectual realism can
give us more information about the consistent structure and features of an
object or scene, but the viewpoint may not be clear. Visual realism preserves
the viewpoint and shows how the object appears from it, but this could be at the
cost of losing some of the consistent features and distorting its structure.
During mid-childhood, children increasingly concentrate on visual realism and
become more successful in drawing from viewpoint (Cox, 2005: 73).
84
The child’s presumed failure to capture view of the object (according to Piaget)
is not the only reason that children do not produce visually realistic pictures.
Studies have shown that children are aware of views and in some situations are
able to draw these. Also, many children do not seem to move smoothly from
one stage to another, but rather through a series of dynamic systems which gain
information in means that cannot be accounted for by the major divisions
falling between intellectual and visual realism (Matthews, 2003: 95).
Stages are not directly dependent on age, mental state, motivation, attitude of
the community or any critical period of growth (Schaefer and Simmern cited in
Gardner, 1980: 255). The procession is as follows:
1. Simple outlined figures; circles, squares or rectangles.
2. Figures ordered in terms of maximum contrast. Schematic figures stand for
any member of their respective class.
3. Variability: objects become differentiated into parts e.g. schematic tree comes
to bear a number of smaller branches. Figure becomes more vital.
4. Ability to organise a larger picture format, with more comprehensive and
intricate balance.
5. Masters more specific features of representation, such as the use of shading
and lighting and of colours. These late changes are affected by formal
tutoring.
85
Theory (Leont’ev, Engeström). What follows is a basic description of a), b) and
c) respectively, while d) is more extensively treated since it forms the basis of
the interpretative model for dioramas (and other museum settings) I later
propose in chapter 6, The Discussion. I consider Activity Theory more
appropriate than the other theories, since it is more applicable to cultural tools
and museum settings such as dioramas. The application of Activity System
(that emerges from Activity Theory) is general. I believe its components can be
adapted to the viewing, interpreting and understanding of dioramas.
Figure 3-3. Contextual Model by Falk and Dierking.
The Contextual Model of Learning by Falk and Dierking (2000) explains that
learning occurs via three main domains: the personal, sociocultural and
physical. Learning is self-motivated, satisfying, and personally rewarding.
Visitors are seen as a community of learners who socially share their knowledge
before, during, and after a museum visit. People have a need to make sense of
their environment by trying to recognize elements of an old context in the new
context.
86
context of which they learn. In the Physical Context, learning is situated within
a physical context. We need to make sense of the environment to find patterns
and make order out of chaos, which is an innate quality of the brain. Spatial
learning is integrated with all types of learning, while all learning is influenced
by the awareness of place.
Figure 3-4. Acuity Model by Patrick.
The Acuity model by Patrick (2006) presents how the mental model of zoos is
the synthesis of the Observation, Interaction and Information frameworks.
Observation framework includes organism naming and words students use to
describe animal care and animal behaviour that they saw at the zoo. The
Information Framework includes the themes education, habitats and
conservation. The Interaction Framework includes the themes people and
amenities.
Figure 3-5. Model-Based Learning by Buckley and Boulter.
87
Model-based learning by Buckley and Boulter (2000) is the formation and
subsequent development of mental models by a learner. Most often used in the
context of dynamic phenomena, mental models organize information about how
the components of systems interact to produce the dynamic phenomena. Mental
models arise from the demands of some task that requires integration of
multiple aspects and/or multiple levels of a system or situation. Model
formation integrates prior knowledge and new information about the instance
into a mental model of the situation. When the mental model is used to
accomplish the task, it is evaluated for its utility in performing the task. If the
mental model is deemed useful, it is reinforced and may become routinized with
repeated use. If the mental model is deemed inadequate, it may be rejected and
another model formed, or it may be revised and then used to try again.
Revisions may involve making changes to an element of the model or it may
take the form of elaboration – adding elements to the model in order to better
accomplish the task. Elements may also be dynamic systems. Ideally, model-
based learning results in rich, multilevel, interconnected mental models that are
extensible and useful for understanding the world.
88
a) the Social Self: persons are essentially social beings; the very nature and
possibility of our minds depends in some deep sense on our membership in a
community or on our participation in culture.
b) the Concept of Activity: Russian thinkers were preoccupied with the claim
that activity was a fundamental explanatory category in philosophy and
psychology. The idea that we are essentially social beings is no longer an
unfamiliar one in Anglo-American philosophy.
Bakhurst (2009) doubts if there is anything that warrants the name “activity
theory” or even that there is any stable view of what the “activity approach” is or
might be. The concept of activity was a vehicle for the articulation of a critical
and creative species of Marxism. There are three principal generations of
Activity Theory or Cultural – Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as it is now
often called:
1. First generation was inaugurated in the late 1920s by Lev Vygotsky, who is
credited with having established a “triangular model” of action.
Figure 3-6. Vygotsky's Tiangular Model.
89
Figure 3-7. Leont'ev's second generation model.
The idea is that the triangle can be applied to concrete subject matter. The terms
used, such as “subject” or “object”, are given specific interpretation depending
on the particular case under scrutiny. It is now common to speak of a third
generation of AT that addresses issues such as representation, voice, emotion,
identity and neglected by the founding troika: Vygotsky, Leont’ev and Luria.
Leont’ev’s work on Activity Theory has been criticised for an allegedly rigid and
restrictive emphasis on tool-mediated production of objects as the prototypical
form of activity. It is said that communication and mediation by signs are
neglected or suppressed in this version of Activity Theory. Criticisms lead to a
two-fold opposition: first mediation by sign is opposed to mediation by tools.
Second, subject-subject relations are opposed to subject-object relations. Third,
expressive or communicative action is opposed to instrumental or productive
activity (Engeström et al. 1999: 21). It is ironic that at the same time that
concept of object-related activity is criticised by some psychologists and
philosophers for neglect of sign mediation, language and communication, some
prominent linguists are finding the same concept of activity increasingly
attractive as a means of conceptualising the interface between sociocultural and
linguistic realms.
90
The concept of activity is the key concept that explains both the emergence of
the world as a possible object of thought through the objectification of
significance and the emergence of our mental powers, which consist in a certain
mode of active engagement with reality and which develops in each individual
(Ilyenkov, 1997). Bakhurst (2009) considers Ilyenkov’s version as a purely
philosophical argument that is not claiming to describe how minded beings
actually evolved, but to explore the nature of kind and world in a way that
outlines the limits of possibility. What philosophers of Anglo-American
tradition see as a contingent circumstance of no philosophical importance,
Ilyenkov places at the very center of the human condition: our active
engagement with nature is the source of our humanity (Bakhurst, 2009: 205).
91
1. What would be a viable way of modelling the structure and dynamic
relations of an Activity System?
2. How can we incorporate historicity and developmental judgement into
activity theoretical analysis, yet take fully into account the diversity and
multiplicity inherent in human activities?
3. What kind of methodology is appropriate for activity theoretical research?
Would it be one that can bridge the gaps between the basic and the applied
and between conceptualisation and intervention?
Vygotsky formulated the idea of mediation, since he was very conscious of the
revolutionary implications concerning control. He called the mediating artefact
an auxiliary stimulus. The idea is that humans can control their own behaviour
– not from the inside on the basis of biological urges, but from the outside using
and creating artefacts. Activity Theory has the conceptual and methodological
potential to be innovative in studies that help humans gain control over their
own artefacts and thus over their future. Marx Wartofsky states that the
artefact is to cultural evolution what the gene is to biological evolution.
Activity Theory today is transcending its own origins and becoming truly
international and multidisciplinary. Although it is widening its acceptance,
Activity Theory is not unproblematic. The theory deals with a tension between
two developmental forces. One force pulls researchers towards individual
applications and separate variations of general, often vague ideas. The other
force, pulls researchers towards mutual learning, questioning and contesting
each other’s ideas and applications, making explicit claims about the theoretical
core of the activity approach (Engeström et al. 1999: 20).
92
conscious and active participant in the reciprocal activities that take place
(Postholm, 2008: 38).
In CHAT, all higher mental functions are looked upon as having social or
cultural origin. According to Dewey, the mind is developed in an environment,
which is social as well as physical, and social aims and needs have been most
potent in shaping it. In CHAT, tools or artefacts are more prominent than in
Dewey’s theory, as they are looked upon as extensions of the individual. In
socio-cultural theory and later in CHAT, language is looked upon as the “tool of
tools”. Dewey believes that the ear is as much an organ of experience as the eye
or hand. He furthermore claimed that social knowledge is learnt in social
intercourse and that one also learns a great deal from others through this
intercommunication.
93
Mediating artefacts function as intermediary aids, which the acting subject
chooses to use when trying to attain the goals for the actions. In Activity System
context is not reduced to something that just surrounds it, but is knit in the
actions, becoming a single process. The actions exist only in relation to the
context that is visualized by the three triangles at the bottom of the Activity
System (Postholm, 2008: 40).
Yrjo Engeström (1993) called Activity Theory “the best kept secret of academia”.
He was right in that in the Anglo-Saxon literature, Activity Theory was virtually
unknown. Engeström’s Activity Theory has been critiqued as being
fundamentally static. Roth (2004) holds that such a characterization fails to
recognize that the model is inherently dynamic due to two features: a) subject
and object form a dialectic unit, which is the essence of an engine of change; b)
human praxis and self-change coincide with change in life conditions, that is,
the very notion of activity at the heart of Engeström’s representation.
Much confusion arises from the fact that the subject is treated as coextensive
with the physical boundaries of the individual or the group. But this cannot be,
for the object of activity also includes its image, which is something perceived by
and characteristic of the individual. As in any dialectical unit, there is an action-
precipitating tension between the non-identical elements of the unit. The
second idea of practical activity and learning as coinciding with changing life
conditions can already be seen in Anglo-Saxon literature, without nevertheless
attributing the idea to Marx and Engels. Practical actions do not just make nice
artefacts, but bring changes in the entire system, including the identity of the
subject.
94
cannot be separated, what can educational testing, which divorces the subject
from normally accessible tools, tell us about the competence of an individual
across activities?
Participation in activity also produces and reproduces the very structure of the
community, of which the individual is a constitutive part. For example, for
individuals whose goals are aligned with the object and whose means of
production, social relations and patterns of interactions (rules) coincide with
the dominant culture of schooling, production leads to reproduction of
bourgeois society. In schooling, and depending on the context, one can identify
many contradictions beginning with out-of-field teaching, lack of tools (no
supplies, books, technology for teaching), inappropriate preparation of teaching
in difficult schools and culturally inappropriate pedagogies. Cultural-historical
activity theory provides the tools to locate and articulate internal contradictions
and to design concrete collective actions to remove them (Roth, 2004: 6).
Although activity theory is now less of a secret than it was 10 years ago, Roth
senses that the potential of cultural-historical Activity Theory for research
practice and practice research has not yet been realized. The study of human
activity remains an area rich in interesting problems relative to the practical
improvement of education and educational systems. Rather than accepting
circumstances as they are, it encourages us to view each action also as
transformational – changing the life conditions and ourselves. We do not have
to accept activity system as they are right now, but continuously contribute to
changing them.
95
contradictions) that currently reigns in much of Western thought may well
dissolve in the context of a dialectical approach (Roth, 2004: 7).
I consider the Activity System that originates from Activity Theory (Leont’ev
and Engeström, 1999) as the most appropriate and adaptable in the case of
interpreting a museum exhibit such as a habitat diorama. Based on this, I
propose my own model, which I present in the last section of chapter 6, the
Discussion. Figure 3-10 is an illustration of the components of the system and
the interrelation between them. The section that follows the illustration of the
Activity System explains what each component is meant to represent.
Figure 3-10. Activity System by Leont’ev.
The Diorama Interpretation Model is derived from Activity System, which has
been adapted to become applicable to museum exhibits with the inclusion of
other features that are presented and extensively explained in chapter 6.
97
4 Methodology
98
“In science a physical picture is often more important than the
mathematics used to describe it.”
Michio Kaku
Physics of the Impossible
In this chapter I explain the methodology employed in the data collection for
this research and the analysis tool used. First, I consider children drawings,
cultural influences and how drawings may be used to elicit knowledge. Next I
present the pilot study, its findings and implications. This is followed by a
comprehensive description of the data collection employed for the main study
and a presentation of the habitat dioramas found at the Natural History
Museum in Malta.
99
linguistic and mathematical intelligences, disregarding other abilities (Anning &
Ring, 2004: 19). The following experts are among many who showed a grave
concern to study the children's drawings: Rhoda Kellogg (1967); Rudolf
Arnheim (1974); Howard Gardner (1978); Brent and Marjorie Wilson (1979);
Judith Burton (1980); Christine Thompson (1990) and Paul Duncan (1993).
100
paint. Power of visual narratives in communities has been quite strong
throughout history and ranges from cave art in charcoal and soot to video art in
digital media (Anning and Ring, 2004: 26). Existing models of drawing in
comics, adverts, cartoons and computer games influence children in their
graphic representations. In educational contexts, there is a strong urge to
maintain a construct of the young child as innocent. Popular media driven
graphics have long been considered as somehow corrupting to very young
minds (Wilson and Wilson, 1977). It has been amply documented that
children’s early drawings exhibit a creativity, which becomes negated by the
conventionalized drawings of middle childhood (Davis and Gardner, 1992: 192).
Among the leading researchers in the field of children’s drawings we find Viktor
Lowenfeld, Rhoda Kellogg and Jean Piaget. Lowenfeld's (1947) study was one
that paved the way for the subsequent studies of children's art. He examined
children's art in a consecutive way from birth till the age of seventeen years. He
divided the children's art development into several stages as follows:
1. Scribbling Stage (from birth to 2 years approx.).
2. Manipulative Stage (2-4 years approx.).
3. Pre-Schematic or Symbol Making Stage (4-7 years approx.).
4. Schematic Stage (7-9 years approx.).
5. Drawing Realism Stage (9-11 years approx.).
6. Late Drawing Realism Stage (11-13 years approx.).
7. Adolescent Stage (13-18 years approx.).
101
On the topic of colour in children‘s drawings, Lowenfeld (1987) states that there
is often little relationship between the colours children select and the objects
they attempt to represent and that the conventional use of colour (green grass
or blue sky) may not appear in children‘s drawings until age eight (Schematic
stage). Being critical of the use of colour or pointing out the correct or realistic
colour for objects would interfere with a child‘s freedom of expression.
Children’s use of colour is for colour’s sake in which the colour chosen is not for
the purpose of imitating subject matter because they do not grasp an exact
colour relationship (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987). Therefore, children’s choice of
colour may not be realistic in its imitation of their environment, but rather
meaningful and expressive to the individual child.
Mendelowitz (1953) concluded a similar study for the children's drawings aged
between 4-15 years. Betty Edwards (1979) defined the stages of the child art
development into four main stages: Scribbling Stage (2.5-3.5 years), Formation
of the Picture Stage (3.5-5 years), Complication Stage (5-10 years) and Realism
Stage (10 years and over). Hurwitz and Day (1991) classified the developmental
stages into three main stages: Manipulative Stage (2-5 years), the Symbol
Making Stage (6-9 years) and Pre-adolescent Stage (10-13 years).
102
Artist and art educator John Matthews (2003) holds that all children’s mark
making is intentional and meaningful and defines three basic types of marks:
vertical, horizontal arcs, and push-pull action. He refers to two modes of
action: i) configurative modes that capture the shape and structure and ii) the
dynamic modes that record the movement of events or objects often seen or
imagined (Anning and Ring, 2004: 22).
The popular vegetation images drawn by children are trees and flowers, in
which Kellogg’s classifications of Scribbles, Diagrams, Combines, Aggregates,
Mandalas, Suns, and Radials are all evident. According to Kellogg (1970),
flowers, trees, and transportation drawings (boats, cars, trains, airplanes) are
not drawn in sizes found in nature or the external world, but in sizes needed to
complete patterns or to achieve aesthetic goals. Kellogg (1970) believes that the
child relies on the basic shapes of art and arranges them in relation to one
another to pictorialize objects and scenes. Like Lowenfeld‘s model, Kellogg‘s
theory of drawing development corresponds to the belief that children’s growth
and development cannot be changed, because it is a naturally unfolding process
(Freeman, 1997).
Her work clearly showed that young children’s art expressions are not very
much learning from copying others, but are spontaneous products of the
individual’s own eye-hand-brain development and visual feedback from their
own scribbles. She also states that arm, hand, eye and brain activity utilized in
art has no age level start or end. Young children all over the world leave a
103
record of scribbling movements in mud or sand or wet surfaces, which will be
one or more of the twenty Basic Scribbles.
All human-made art originates from basic human capabilities common to the
species, with varieties of art developing somewhat differently due to the
individual’s differing experiences in times and in places (Kellogg, 1973: 8).
Piaget used children’s drawings only to support his own stage theory of child
development (Kelly, 2004). Although Piaget occasionally utilized the drawings
of young children to illustrate his theory, studies of drawings were never central
in his theory development. Piaget proposed that children’s drawings were
essentially realistic in intention and that the child intended to produce a
representation of an object in a recognizable and realistic fashion. The colour
usage, shapes, and formation of lines used in the drawings and images of
children can be attributed to an attempt to create a true representation of the
real world, as opposed to an expressive interpretation (Thomas & Silk, 1990).
As Piaget attributes the drawings of young children as a developmental process,
it can be noted that it is a progression from stages determined by chronological
age in addition to a child‘s ability to assimilate and accommodate to new stimuli
in the real world. Although children’s drawings were beneficial only to Piaget in
sustaining his own theory of child development, his theory supports a
succession of sequential stages, which contribute to the overall understanding of
the child’s intellectual growth and development.
104
Although each theorist may distinguish different possibilities for growth to
occur, it can be concluded that the progression and images that children make
are universal in outcome and product. Where Lowenfeld (1987) believes that
children create drawings that are inherently important and reflect their desire to
express their experiences and emotions, Piaget proposes that the drawings
children make are the product of an intentional effort to represent realistic
images (Thomas & Silk, 1990). Regardless of which theory proves this
assumption, both theories consider the progression of a young child’s drawing
in migrating from the stage where this occurs to a stage characteristic of their
continued growth.
Lowenfeld, Kellogg, and Piaget have influenced the field of education, art and
child development through their distinct theories of children‘s drawings and
development. Based on the literature in the field of child development through
art as presented by Lowenfeld, Kellogg, and Piaget, assumptions made as to the
outcomes of colour selection in the drawings of young children are as follows:
1. Kindergarten-age children will make expressive colour choices rather than
logical colour choices in the drawings they create.
2. In relation to gender, girls would use more expressive colour choices than
boys.
3. Logical colour choices would increase with age and higher level of academic
ability.
The overarching concept in stage theories is that children’s drawings were seen
as deficient as they worked towards the goal of visual realism. This construct of
the purpose of drawing as portraying an accurate representation of objects,
places and people is deeply rooted in the traditions of art training in Western
culture. In other cultures, such as in African Art, Australian Aboriginal ‘dream
time’ drawings and Islamic religious life, there is no such tyranny of
representation as the highest goal of artistry (Anning & Ring, 2004: 18).
Arnheim states that representations tend to have the simplest visual form that
will accurately capture the intended meaning, for instance, a circular contour to
depict the perceived roundness of the human head. The meaning of a particular
form depends on the alternatives that are available to the artist at the time or
105
the extent to which his graphic vocabulary help him to make distinctions, for
example the distinction between symmetrical and asymmetrical shapes. This
leads to the concept of differentiation that refers to at least two outcomes: the
addition of detail to an existent form that may enrich the structure, but does not
affect the basic appearance, and modifications that lead to its transformation
(Golomb, 2004).
Children all over the world scribble and no matter at what chronological age a
child starts to scribble, he or she will go through basic developmental stages:
exploratory scribbling, disordered scribbling, controlled scribbling, shape
stage, design stage and representational stage (Garden, 1980; Kellogg, 1970;
Lowenfeld, 1963, 1964; Striker, 2001). Exploratory scribbling describes the
initial beginner scribbling through which the child is getting acquainted with the
drawing tool and becomes interested in its properties rather than what it can do.
These random marks on paper are usually a result of adult encouragement and
an innate desire to imitate. Marks are usually light coloured in nature and
basically the result of banging, dragging or sweeping the pencil or crayon on
paper. These very first marks on paper are the child’s means of
communication, and similar to the first walking steps should be encouraged and
praised. This is the child’s beginning in literacy development.
Lines going back and forth or up and down resulting from shoulder rather than
hand or arm movements, characterize disordered scribbling. Scribble patterns
show the understanding of the paper boundaries. The child also starts to
imitate marks other people make or choose to draw over someone’s marks.
Plenty of experience in making marks on paper as well as with finger paint is
required to satisfy their needs. Parents’ and teachers’ comments should be
descriptive and reflective instead of judgmental. Controlled scribbling is
achieved when the child is pleased with his or her marks on paper and this
motivates further mark making. The child now knows how to use the marker
well to produce repeated movements on paper and energetic scribbling to create
an overall shape. At the end of this stage, children would have gained sufficient
muscle control to include in their scribbles all the twenty basic forms given by
Rhoda Kellogg (1970) in her scribbling “alphabet”. The latter aids in
recognizing all the different strokes a child can produce.
106
Shape stage is an important milestone when the child begins to join two ends to
enclose shapes that become circles, squares and triangles (at times filled with
colour). Some children might also name their scribbles, seemingly wanting to
connect the form they perceive on paper with what they know, example a circle
is the ‘sun’. Socially, the child at this stage wants to establish a link with others
through drawing. According to Striker (2001), the use of lines and shapes as
symbols for other things is the bridge leading to symbol recognition and
formation employed in reading and writing. To Lowenfeld (1964), the naming
of scribbling is of the highest significance since it shows that the child’s thinking
is changing from the kinaesthetic in terms of motions to the imaginative in
terms of images. In the Design stage, the child shows greater understanding of
symmetry and order in world around him or her, and starts to combine the
learnt shapes. “Mandalas” (Sanskrit for magic circle), one of the most sacred
forms in the world, appear at this stage. After age three, children are able to
form suns with radiating lines (a natural scribble for all children) that adults
perceive as the sun, but for the child it is first a perfectly balanced and orderly
design. Deep exploration of mandalas, suns and radials lays the basis for
drawing people and early animals.
Representational Stage is that when the child makes basic and general
representations of people consisting of a round form, inner shapes that become
the eyes and arms as two lines radiating from the circle. The basic human form
is used to draw other objects like a car, a bug or a cat. The child draws just a
“dog” rather than his or her dog. Later representations may include drawing
more than one side, showing the interior of objects and setting objects into
scenes. Representational drawing is the foundation for narrative and we can
start by listening to the child’s stories as he or she draws. Once children have
established the pattern of drawing and storytelling, they may be encouraged to
write down their stories.
Children will look for models when they need to achieve effects they have not
gained in a natural way and which they are unable to create on their own. The
model can serve as a way of helping the drawer achieve what he himself wants
to express in a way that makes sense to him and to others. Gardner holds that if
the child knows the object she would use an array of schemas possessed and
107
produce a more artistic and less faithful picture. If the object were unknown,
she would copy slavishly and try to produce a more faithful drawing (Gardner,
1980: 164). 5 to 8 year old children produce different drawings when they draw
from imagination and when they copy an object. For example, children below
eight years of age will draw a cup with a handle even if the handle is not visible
(Cox, 1992: 91). Brooks (2005) states that ‘the power of drawing for children . . .
is that it more closely represents thought’ (pg.81).
Drawing Humans
The earliest shapes useful for the representation of any object and its parts tend
to be circular. Straight lines may be added to differentiate and enrich in detail.
The straight line serves two primary functions: it indicates extension and, when
combined with the circular contour, it also represents a figural quality or
“thingness”, such as limbs, eyes, nose, mouth, eyebrows and hair. The circle
and line create the sunburst pattern that is an early and highly favoured
configuration comprised of a center or circle with lines or loops radiating from
its circumference. The sunburst pattern can represent diverse objects such as
eyes and eyelashes, hands, feet, suns, and flowers. The curiosity that leads to
early (almost accidental) discoveries of figural features of shapes is motivated
and is reminiscent of familiar objects and summons further experimentation
(Golomb, 2004).
Drawing Animals
Whittaker and Golomb (cited in Golomb, 2004) asked 250 two- to seven-year
olds to draw humans, plants and animals namely a cat, giraffe, fish, bird, snake
and worm. They found that the four-year-olds showed greater competence and
self-confidence drawing humans most frequently followed by birds, fish, giraffes
and cats. Increasingly, the appearance of the real life object exerts its influence
on the experimental. Cats are normally drawn in two-dimensional horizontal
body displayed in side view, head in frontal view, four straight legs and an
occasional tail. Most children draw fish and birds in side view although facial
features continue to be drawn, frequently from a frontal view. Typically, a fish
is drawn as an oval with the usual sideways fish-mouth, one or two eyes and a
tail. Wings, beaks and aerial views graphically define birds, while the snakes
become two-dimensional and often display a long wavelike and at times
108
gracefully curved body suggestive of its motion. The developmental progression
observed in four-year-olds becomes more pronounced in five- to seven-year-
olds. Animals are now almost only drawn in their standard sideways
orientation, highlighting the distinctive features of the subject. Four legged
animal drawings attain some degree of figural differentiation and display the
right-angular directions seen in humans. In birds, head, body, and tail tend to
be aligned horizontally, while wings extend vertically. Similarly, the head and
tail in fish constitute the horizontal direction, whereas gills and fins extend
vertically. This shows that the principle of differentiation applies broadly,
across a wide range of tasks and subject matter and that the animals drawn
illustrate the same stages in the differentiation of shape.
Drawing Plants
Similar to the graphic origins of humans and animals, the first representations
of flowers and trees are also circular shapes. By ages five to seven years, the
two-dimensional trunk has become the standard model. The crown is no longer
drawn as a simple circle, but its contour assumes an undulating pattern whose
dimensions tend to be wider than the tree trunk. Some of the drawings show
branches, apples, and roots; increasingly, the trunk tends to be shaded and a
darkened circle in its center suggests a hole, perhaps the home of an animal, or
the place where a branch has been cut off.
Composition in Drawing
The creation of pictorial space depends on the coordination of several different
frameworks that specify, a) the relations among the parts of a single object; b)
the relations among several figures; and c) the relation of groups of figures to
the superordinate structure that unites the different components into a coherent
109
pictorial statement. The coordination of all the elements that comprise a
drawing makes great demands on the cognitive planning capacities of the child.
Golomb (2004) derives two dominant compositional tendencies from her data:
the alignment principle and the centric symmetry tendency both being
descriptive principles of organization. As children get older they appear to use
the alignment principle of spatial organization with greater confidence. Figures
tend to be placed at the bottom of the page, implying that the open space above
now represents air or the sky with evident use of birds, clouds or the sun.
Drawings gain in thematic complexity and there is a sharp increase in variety of
forms, sizes, and colours, and more explicitly drawn spatial referents of ground
and sky, which suggest that the figures belong together constituting a unit in
nature or just in the drawing, example trees and flowers can convey the idea of a
park. There is also a general tendency to place a single figure in the center,
somewhere along the vertical midline of the page. This confers a degree of
prominence and stability on the figure.
The dual compositional trends continue to dominate the drawings of older child
ages seven to thirteen. With age, there is a noticeable increase in differentiation
in the number and type of figure. Figures are grouped together to indicate a
special relationship or a common interest, and such grouping is on the basis of
similarity of size, colour, form, and activity (Golomb, 2004).
110
the elements, of shape, line, size, colour, location, and direction into a coherent
structure. The progression toward this aim is a slow though orderly process
that begins with isolated object-centred descriptions, in which each object is
depicted as an independent unit. Next, objects show some degree of
interdependence, which is illustrated in the manner in which they affect each
other.
111
Influenced by Western culture, less variability and fewer idiosyncrasies mark
older children’s drawings as they try to resemble photos and try to capture as
closely as possible the characteristics of objects. Children are increasingly
inclined on getting things just right or looking at things just the way they
happen to be (Gardner, 1980: 149). A main reason why children often draw the
canonical view of objects, even if they actually see a different view, is that they
are concerned to make the drawing look recognisable (Cox, 1992: 95).
The Menominee creation story has people coming from the bear, and even the
youngest children are familiar with the animal-based clan system. In short,
there is an explicit cultural support for a symmetrical relation between humans
112
and other animals. The second result observed was the reasoning strategy in
terms of ecological relations. Ecological reasoning was a common strategy
among even the youngest Menominee children. In contrast, such reasoning was
only common among the oldest children coming from a rural culture. In
summary, both culture and experience affect children’s anthropocentrism and
propensity for ecological reasoning (Bang et al., 2007: 13869).
Golomb refers to the notion of drawings as ‘culture-free’ works from the child’s
mind. However, comparisons between drawings from western societies and
those from different regions of the world do not support a universally valid,
culture-free instrument for cognitive assessment (Golomb, 2004: 343). After
worldwide collections of children’s drawings became available it was evident
that there were marked differences in what children drew and how they drew it.
While schooled children tend to draw conventional objects there is usually
much more variety in drawing produced by unschooled children. It is well
recognized that children draw the things that interest them and are important in
their lives, but this varies in different cultures. Studies show that cultural child-
rearing and teaching practice ideologies influence children’s use of size-scaling,
detail, placement and distance between objects. Choice and forms of content in
children’s drawings is influenced by the art traditions and values in the culture,
the impact these have on child’s art education, drawing models inherent within
the culture and imported and the child’s environment, lifestyle and nationality
(cultural) values (Jolly, 2010: 248-71).
Cox reports similarities among cultures where young children prefer realism
and colour, while older ones prefer complexity. Different cultures do exhibit
varying drawing styles and it is clearly evident that there are alternatives to the
western style of depiction. Children tend to conform to the style that
predominates and is more valued in their own culture. For instance, the
Warlpiri children of central Australia were found to be equally happy with
western and traditional styles, since both are valued in their society (Cox, 2005:
239). Bedouin children in the Sinai peninsula draw women with the traditional
Moslem garb and figures with very small or shaded facial area and lacking
features. Cultural variability undoubtedly exists, but it comprises a limited set
of variations on a common underlying structure, which is indicative of a set of
113
rules that may yield alternative models, which are representatively equivalent
(Golomb, 2004: 353). We are not likely to find a set of genes that predispose
children and naïve adults to drawing tadpole type, open-trunk figures and right-
angular relations. A fixed hereditary imprint would downplay the value that
drawing as a record of visual thinking may have to the researcher.
When ask to mention plants, children in England were more likely to name
Bryophytes and seedless vascular plants than children in the USA. This could
be an indication that the local community plays an important part in what
children know about plants. Children in both countries name agriculturally
produced plants more than any other group and children mostly see these at
home, in a garden or in a yard. Such differences seem to be culturally
influenced (Patrick and Tunnicliffe, 2011: 638).
114
Most commonly used tests of understanding rely heavily on words. The balance
between words and diagrams shifts between various probing techniques such as
concept maps, interviews, fortune lines, relational diagrams and word
associations. In drawings, the balance is shifted to one extreme, with very
limited use of words restricted to the instructions and any that the students may
choose to include into their drawings. Some modes may be more supportive of
student learning than others, students can ‘draw to learn’ effectively, where the
visual media affords ‘specific advantages over the textual media’ (Waldrip et al,
2006: 91).
Visual methods are said to be child-centered firstly in the sense that video,
photography and drawing may be familiar, relatively non-intimidating and even
enjoyable to the child. Second, visual methods are believed to offer a means of
reducing the power imbalances that characterize interviews or focus groups in
which children respond to questions posed by an adult researcher. Third, unlike
verbal interviews or written surveys, visual methods do not give a
“communicative advantage” to the adult researcher (Mitchell, 2006: 62). This
shows that drawing is seen as appropriate for the cognitive and communicative
skills associated with being a child, especially a pre-teen.
Though only one drawing item was included in the TIMSS science assessments,
its inclusion demonstrates that drawing exercises can be used in large-scale,
cross-cultural research (over 40 countries participated in TIMSS, with data
collected in more than 30 languages) and be reliably scored (Haney et al. 2004:
248).
Apart from the word-diagram dimension, drawings also lie at the extreme of the
degree to which students’ responses are limited. Drawings are very open, with
practically no limits on how the student may respond. In no way does this
discount the value and utility of closed methods. It should be appreciated that
both closed and open methods exist and that they trace different aspects of
understanding (White and Gunstone, 1992: 98). The reason for drawings as a
probe springs from their extreme positions on the word-diagram and closed-
open dimensions. Interviews can also uncover understanding, but drawings
expose it more efficiently and effectively and also with an openness that is more
115
persuasive than could be possible through words. Drawings may bring out the
drawer’s feelings about the subject in a way that other probes cannot do. This
has been shown in children’s drawings showing scientists (White and Gunstone,
1992: 101). Drawings also expose stereotypes that effect representations people
have of objects in plain sight, such as adding a stem to elm leaves that in reality
do not have a stem (Symington et al., 1981: 48).
Drawings are not a substitute for children’s voices and the absence or muting or
fragmentation of children’s talk about their images means researchers need to
be particularly cautious about over-interpreting their images (Mitchell,
2006:69). The pleasure that children may experience during drawing is almost
palpable and can be an important aspect of the analysis. Drawing activities were
a non-stressful way for researchers and children to get to know one another
(pg.70).
Drawings can be an alternative to verbal expression for children that are often
able to express feelings and ideas that they cannot put into words (Lewis &
Green in Bowker, 2007: 79; Gunstone and White, 1992: 101; Mavers, 2003).
Drawings being the most open-ended of techniques may reveal unusual and
unsuspected understanding. They may reveal hidden ideas that closed
techniques couldn’t since the respondents would be more confined to matching
parts of their understandings to that of the prober. It would have been difficult
for Symington and colleagues to discover the extent to which children’s
observations and images of leaves are affected by stereotypes had they not used
drawings. Drawings have the potential of tapping understanding in a more
holistic manner by allowing expression of attitudes or feelings together with
cognition (Gunstone and White, 1992: 104).
The written recount implicitly poses the question: ‘What were the
salient events and actions and in what order did they occur?’ The
image with its spatial logic implicitly asks the question: ‘What were
the salient objects for you in that day and in what ordering do they
have for me?’ (Kress, 2010: 93).
116
few empirical studies have made use and evaluated the potential of drawings in
elucidating scientific understanding. Children possess great capabilities in
communicating through drawing that enable them to overcome language
barriers (Mavers, 2003). Psychological research has a century-old tradition of
using children’s drawings, but other than that focused on art education
drawings are rarely used in educational research. Drawing is normally learned
informally as children interact with images they come across everyday, during
experimentation and while observing others in action. Educational discourse
does not place drawing on the same level to writing as a representation of
learning. Teachers are not as willing to support children when drawing as they
do with writing. Educationists and researchers can make sound decisions how
to make good use of drawings for representation when they recognize the range
of semiotic features in what children draw (Mavers, 2011: 126).
This is not to say that drawing is necessarily superior to other means, but it does
have advantages. One is the relative ease of obtaining a rich mass of data that
related to the children’s mental models. Another is the international suitability
of drawing that transcends the huge diversity of languages (Reiss et al, 2002:
59). However, finished drawings cannot portray the thinking, talking, social
interaction and mark-making sequences that form a fundamental part of the
process (Coates & Coates, 2006: 222). Drawings may also provide insights into
children’s cognitive, affective and social development (Bowker, 2007: 79).
Unfortunately, schools tend to suffocate children’s natural inclination to use
drawing as a mode of thinking and learning. Many teachers consider drawing a
minor communicative tool, secondary to writing and speech (Anning, 1997:
219).
117
How well can a drawing visualize a thought? An evident risk may seem the
obvious limitation in the ability of a person to reproduce through a drawing
what that person is really thinking about. Although there could be a limitation
in the ability of a person to reproduce through a drawing what that person is
really thinking about, the real purpose of the drawing was to express a message
of meaning and it was this meaning that the analysis strives to unfold (Alerby,
2000: 218). Most children will draw when encourage to, but there will always
be individuals who will find it hard to do so. Some will need to be assured that
we are not after high quality artistic or design artefacts. Children and young
people need to be told that it is not important how skilful they are at making
drawings, but rather to use the drawing to visualize their thoughts (Alerby,
2000: 210).
118
their as yet limited exploration of the medium and of the objects they
wish to portray” (Golomb, 2004: 360).
If drawing proves to be too daunting a task, the young person is likely to turn to
other, less challenging means of communication.
“Unless one’s own drawing can be viewed by oneself, and others, as
reasonably competent, they are likely to be found distressingly
wanting” (Gardner 1980: 262).
It has been shown that drawings done by the same child of an animal from
memory and others copied from a picture vary considerably in form and texture.
When asked to draw any ‘animal’, the child retrieves a ‘tried-and-true’ schema
from a repertoire of animal forms, one that may represent any type of vertebrate
species. When copying, the child will try to faithfully reproduce the presented
picture by following the outlines to yield a precise duplicate of the original.
Studies by Wilson and Wilson suggest that the more one knows about the
identity of something, the more likely one is to rely on previously elaborated
schemas rather than on actual ‘retinal’ properties (Gardner, 1980: 164). Cox
suggests that when researchers name the object, this conjures up or suggests a
canonical view of the object, which will be drawn. On the other hand, when the
object is not named it seems that it is less likely that the canonical view and
more likely that a realistic picture will be drawn (Cox, 1992: 97).
119
According to Cox, our left-brain abilities tend to predominate which explains
why most of us do not excel at drawing. We describe the scene to ourselves by
naming and categorising what we know about the objects in it and this
knowledge is often in conflict with the way the scene actually looks. In right
brain mode, by contrast, we don’t consider what the objects in the scene actually
are, instead we look at their shapes and edges and at how these features relate to
one another spatially to form the whole visual configuration. In R-mode,
language-based descriptions of three-dimensional objects don’t get in the way;
we can have access to what we see much more. Children are not simply
expressing themselves through drawing, but they are also novices who are
learning how to draw (Cox, 1992: 193-213).
Children working in small groups can easily take a look, comment and ask
questions about their colleagues’ work. Children may make positive or critical
120
remarks among them, but a critical remark may make a child give up the
drawing and start all over again (Hopperstad, 2010: 448). To some children a
rather open ended instruction (‘Now I want you to draw something’) may
encourage them to pursue personal agendas and interests. Others may feel
uncertain what to focus on and draw what they believe the teacher would expect
and approve of (Anning and Ring, 2004). While some materials and activities
(such as drawing, construction, role plays with puppets or dolls) may be familiar
to children, children may find these boring in that they could use them on other
occasions, both in the museums and in other contexts and would prefer some
modern gadget such as a digital camera or video (Dockett, 2011: 19).
4.2.1 Methodology
The quantitative analytical method used scores of drawings using techniques
based on the Personal Meaning Mapping (PMM) developed by John Falk and
Lynn Dierking. PMM is a constructivist method that recognises the visitor as
an active participant in constructing understanding of an exhibit and also in
that it considers learners having unique experience and knowledge. Moreover,
PMM is a method that does not seek a ‘correct answer’ from children to
demonstrate learning (Bowker & Jasper, 2007: 139), but allows for the
transformation of qualitative data into numerical codes that can be statistically
analyzed by the researcher.
121
4.2.2 Research design
Two grade 5 classes (9-10 year olds) from two different schools, a state co-
educational school (school A) in Rabat (central Malta) and an independent
Roman Catholic school for boys (school B) in Valletta (south-east harbour),
were chosen. School A has a student population of about 280 pupils, while
school B has about 150 pupils in the primary school. In both cases, the pupils
are mixed ability and coming from various social strata and do not pay for their
education.
122
compulsory (Morrow & Richards, 1996). Children, parents, teachers and school
authorities were free to withdraw their participation from this study at all times.
A week before carrying out the first task, I visited both schools where I
introduced myself to pupils as a teacher and researcher and talked to the
children about flora and fauna for a few minutes so that they could familiarise
themselves with me before the visit. I explained what we would be doing and
that we were going to visit the Natural History Museum that week. The
following instructions were given to the pupils:
a. I would like you to draw a place with animals and plants that you see in
Malta.
b. You are not being examined, but please try to work on your own without
copying.
c. You can take your time, no need to hurry, but I think 30 minutes should be
enough.
d. When you finish, please clearly write your name, age and class on the back of
your drawing.
My interferences were minimal only answering questions to clarify the
instructions given, otherwise the children were told that it was up to them what
to include in the drawing. I assured them that I was only interested in animals
and plants they would draw and not how well they could draw. I was present,
together with the class teacher, for the duration of the task.
123
4.4.2 During the visit
Schools have been criticised for allowing visits to museums without sufficient
preparation, focus and review (Tunnicliffe, Osborne and Lucas, 1997: 1053). All
necessary logistic arrangements were made with the museum curator and the
school senior management team.
Pupils used HB pencil, pencil colours and plane A4 sheet paper in each case. I
asked them to write their name, age and school on the back of the drawing.
These were collected and analysed in relation to the ones drawn prior to the
visit.
4.5 Analysis
The 9-10 year old 45 pupils involved in the study produced a total of 90
drawings, one pre- and one post-visit per pupil. Drawings were analysed
qualitatively for biological content and also quantitatively through a scoring
124
system adapted for this study. The scoring system was based on that developed
by Bowker (2007: 82) from techniques used in the Personal Meaning Mapping
(PMM) methodology of Falk & Dierking (2000). PMM was designed by Falk
and his colleagues to assess how learning experiences affect the individual’s
meaning making process. This approach was designed specifically for use in
free-choice learning environments and with the basic principle that no two
visitors have the same visit experience. Each child’s perception of a visit is not
only influenced by the physical and social context but also by the personal
context that the individual brings to the visit (Bowker & Jasper, 2007: 138).
125
Table 4-1. Scale used for scoring elaboration (iii. above) based on Bowker (2007).
Score 1 2 3 4 5
Animals – accuracy of overall form and very poor poor average good excellent
distinguishing features
Plants – accuracy of general form, shape very poor poor average good excellent
of leaves, trunk, colour, texture, etc
Overall: general quality of the drawing very poor poor average good excellent
126
Table 4-2. % pupils drawing the listed organisms in pre- and post- visit drawings.
Trees were seen in 6 out of 19 drawings, while a flower was drawn just once.
Human artefacts and physical features were rarely noted and the most
recognisable features being door, window, rubble wall, rocks, soil, clouds and
the sun.
The drawings done by children from School B had also isolated animals and
only a fifth presented more than four animals. The animals frequently drawn
from observation were a bird, a snail and a bat. A tree was included in 5 out of
26 drawings, while a flower was seen only once. Very few human artefacts and
physical feature were drawn and noted in only a sixth of drawings. The animals,
which were recognisable, were birds, rabbits, butterflies, snails, starfish, crabs
and bats, with the most accurate representations being those of birds, snails and
bats. Other recognisable types were reptiles; snakes, crocodiles, mammals; cat,
cow and pig and birds. Twenty per cent of pupils wrote names near the animals
they had drawn. A fifth of drawings showed habitat features, but no
interactions between organisms could be documented.
127
4.5.2 Post-visit drawings
Following their visit, school A pupils produced drawings that presented a
greater variety of animals, while the individual animals were more recognisable.
Most pupils drew a sparrow, a butterfly, a rooster, a snail and other types of
birds. Other animals drawn were shells, rabbits, rats, starfish, bats, spiders and
hedgehogs. A greater percentage of pupils drew a tree and a flower with almost
all (90%) drawings showing evidence of some form of habitat seen in the
dioramas. Most drawings had an identifiable diorama setting seen at the
museum with the most commonly represented being the rural courtyard (58%)
and the sandy shore (47%). Children also drew the following abiotic structures
window, boat, sand, rocks and soil.
The school B pupils used colour in their post-visit drawings, which improved the
quality of the drawings and aiding in the identification of living and non-living
features. The rationale for using colour was not investigated in this study. In
this case too, children drew better recognisable animals and more variety in
animal life too. Most pupils drew a bird while a third drew a rabbit, bat, snails
and starfish. Less than 10% of pupils drew a tree or a flower. A fifth of the
drawings showed a habitat feature from a diorama and a clear diorama setting.
Recognisable diorama settings drawn were the beach, field and valley identified
from the presence of a rubble wall, boat, sand, rocks, water and soil. Some non-
diorama features seen were other animals, sun and unusual things like guns and
syringes.
128
4.5.4 Variety scores
The mean scores for animal diversity do not show a significant increase in
variety in post-visit drawings (t=1.69, >0.05) due mainly to a decrease in the
score for School A pupils. There was a significant increase however, for school B
(t=2.92, <0.05). School A pupils showed significantly more variety in pre-visit
drawings compared to School B (t=6.09, <0.05). However, there was no
significant difference between schools in the post-visit drawings (t=1.22, >0.05).
Figure 4-1. Mean score for whole group: variety (pilot).
4
Mean Score
0
A n im a l Div er sit y Pla n t Div er sit y A r t efa ct & Ph y sica l
Pre Post
There was a significant increase in the artifacts and physical features in the
post-visit drawings (t=4.40, <0.05) of the whole group, due in most part to a
high score obtained by School A pupils. Moreover, there was a significant
difference between the post-visit scores of both schools (t=6.99, <0.05).
Figure 4-2. Mean score for School A & B: variety (pilot).
4
Mean Score
0
A n im a l Div er sit y Pla n t Div er sit y A r t efa ct & Ph y sica l
129
There was a significant difference between the mean scores the two schools for
the diorama (t=5.85, <0.05) and non-diorama features (t=2.21, <0.05) in the
post-visit drawings. Obviously, pre-visit drawings did not contain diorama
setting features since the pupils had never seen them before.
Figure 4-3. Post-visit mean scores for Schools A & B (pilot).
2 .5
2
Mean Score
1 .5
0 .5
0
Dior a m a Non -Dior a m a
SchA SchB
3 .5
2 .5
Mean Score
1 .5
0 .5
0
A n im a ls Pla n t s Ov er a ll
Pre Post
130
Both schools A and B showed a significant increase in their post-visit scores for
animals. School A had a significant increase in both the plants and overall
scores but school B did not show any significant increase in either of these two
categories.
Figure 4-5. Mean score for School A & B: elaboration (pilot).
3 .5
2 .5
Mean Score
1 .5
0 .5
0
A n im a ls Pla n t s Ov er a ll
The contents of the pre-visit drawings are an illustration of the children’s prior
knowledge that they acquired from school and other first hand experiences.
Pupils from both schools drew, in most cases less than four, isolated and
unconnected animals. Results are also consistent with children’s aesthetic
interest for nature being connected with the larger animals and specimens more
often portrayed in the media such as mammals and the birds (Kellert, 1996).
The fact that few pupils use knowledge relating to habitats where animals
naturally occur is a result of the emphasis in primary level science teaching in
Malta on naming and categorizing organisms as isolated entities (Tunnicliffe et
al., 2oo8). Research has also shown that few pupils show an adequate
integration of understanding of environments (Tunnicliffe & Reiss, 1999:146).
131
Very few pupils included any form of plant life, thus strengthening the view that
plants are of no immediate importance to children (Bowker, 2007:91; Johnson,
2004:79). The majority of children drew birds and animals including snails,
rabbits, bats, butterflies and hedgehogs, which were also the most accurately
drawn.
The post-visit drawings showed that the pupil’s awareness of flora and fauna
had improved. Pupils produced drawings with a wider variety of more
accurately drawn animals and more plant life. There was no significant
difference in the animal variety between the pre- and post drawings. School B
pupils showed enhanced awareness compared to those of school A, whose pupils
evidently came to the visit with a more extensive prior knowledge. The
dioramas objectively do not contain a large amount of plant life and pupils
recorded little flora following the diorama observation. Nonetheless, more trees
and flowers were noted in the post visit drawings meaning that, although not
leaving a significant effect, the flora was observed by the pupils. A marked
difference was noted in the ecological relationships. In the post-visit drawings,
animals were drawn within an environmental context, as they were shown in the
dioramas. This was the case for school A more so than school B where only 20%
of the pupils showed any environmental context in their drawing. This finding
could be partly explained by the fact that the School A pupils drew their second
drawing on the day of the visit while those from School B drew the day following
the visit.
Pupils drew the house yard, beach and field most often, an indication that these
were the environments with which they were familiar more than the valley and
fortifications. A most interesting aspect was how pupils placed animals in an
ecological setting rather than presenting them as isolated objects. A significant
increase in physical features is evidence of more environmental context in post-
drawings. The School A pupils seem to have noted this and incorporated it into
their mental model more so than the pupils of School B had observed and
recorded.
Thus the data give an indication that, when allowed, children can reveal what
they have observed and assimilated in their mental model through drawings
132
(Bowker, 2007:94). Evidence for this statement is from changes in number of
different plants and animals drawn, the increase in environmental features
included, and the better quality and richness of drawings. Drawing may be a
very rich source of data and a useful tool for finding what children notice in
museum exhibits, but not without limitations. Conversations recorded during
the visits show that children observed a wider variety of animals than they
actually drew. They mentioned animals in the dioramas, such as weasel, owl,
grasshopper and chameleon, which they then did not include in their drawings.
Data obtained from the conversations supports that from drawing in that the
animals mentioned by the largest number of pupils match those that were
drawn by the largest percentages of children. These include birds, butterflies,
snails, rats, spider, bats, owls and lizards.
Most children appeared to enjoy the museum experience and the drawing
activity. Drawing on site would have been more appropriate but the museum
does not offer appropriate space where this could have been done. Acoustically
it was not always possible to capture all that the children were saying because
they tend to speak together or do so in a low voice. Talking to the children
about their drawing would be a helpful technique to enable researchers to better
understand their representations.
133
found in drawings to numbers. It is equally unwise to draw too many
conclusions from such a short learning experience. Nonetheless, quantifiable
data can be useful in strengthening the analysts’ interpretations and conclusions
about drawings and also revealing more about children’s observations. Results
from this study show that the viewing of natural settings does affect the
children’s perceptions and that these are, at least partly, incorporated in their
mental models. Different children show this phenomenon to a varying degree
within their drawings as revealed in the expressed models of their drawings.
Habitat dioramas possess considerable potential as tools in the biological
education of young school children and class teachers should be encouraged to
exploit this potential.
134
knowledge obtained during the museum visit and so it was important to
look into this aspect. There may also be specific cultural characteristics
that Maltese children yield in their drawings of animals and plants that are
interesting to investigate.
d. Students were now told that they could use colour in the drawing. They
were given the following task instruction:
“I would like you to draw a place with animals and plants in Malta”.
135
Relevant insights were also gained from the work of Falk and Dierking (2000,
2008), Hooper-Greenhill (1994, 1999), Moussouri (1997) on science
understating and learning in museums, Kellert (1996) on aesthetic images of the
natural world formed via formal and informal learning, Braund (2004) on out-
of-school learning and science outside the laboratory, Anning (1997) on young
children’s learning from drawing Bowker (2007) on empirical and scoring
methods in research with children learning in non-formal settings, and Reiss
and Tunnicliffe (1999, 2001, 2007) learning from dioramas.
136
4.9.2 Creating webs (personal meaning mapping)
Diverse methodologies might disclose different perceptions and data collection
methods can influence the type of perceptions identified (Bowker, 2004: 232).
PMM is an approach developed by John Falk and his colleagues at the Institute
of Learning Innovation in Annapolis (an organisation committed to
understanding learning from a Constructivist-Relativist perspective in free-
choice settings). The technique was created to address the five criteria for
meaningful free-choice learning experiences (Adams et al, 2003: 18):
1. Emphasise validity over reliability
2. Allow for the visitors’ agendas to emerge
3. Address the effect of time on learning
4. Respect that learning is situated and contextualised
5. Be open to a broad range of outcomes
PMM was designed to measure how a specific viewing opportunity and possibly
learning experience (visitors look identify and interpret but they do not
necessarily learn) uniquely affects each individual’s understanding or meaning-
making process. It does not assume that every learner comes to the museum
with the same knowledge and experience nor does it require that learners
produce a specific “right” answer to be able to evidence learning. PMM focuses
on the person’s unique learning and not some prescribed outcome (Adams et al,
2003: 23). In this research the map is called webs since this is how the children
know it.
PMM is a data collection method that involves asking participants to write down
on a blank sheet of paper as many words, ideas, images, phrases or thoughts as
come to mind related to a specific, word, phrase or even an image and this prior
137
to viewing a museum exhibit or participating in a program. The ‘prompting’
word or phrase is placed at the center of the page and the related words, ideas,
images or phrases are written around the central prompting word. Developing
the prompt is a crucial part of using the PMM method. Participants are
normally given as much time as they need or desire to write down all of their
words, thoughts, phrases and ideas. When done, data collectors then encourage
the participants to explain why they wrote what they did and to expand on their
ideas. The expanded responses are recorded by the data collector on the same
sheet of paper, using the visitors’ own words and thought process. Finally, data
collectors conduct an open-ended interview, probing any changes or
improvements in their understanding shown by their responses.
138
The pre-visit task was done in school (4th November 2009) as follows:
1. The task was done in class, where the children worked at their own bench.
2. I was present in class to give instructions and ensure all children followed
them. I also supervised the children to ensure that everyone, as much as
possible, worked independently.
3. Children were asked to produce one drawing. All instructions were given in
native Maltese language with the main question being the following.
In Maltese: “Jekk joghgobkom tistghu tpingu post go Malta fejn taraw
annimali u pjanti”.
In English: “Please, could you draw a place in Malta where you see
animals and plants?”
a. You are not being examined, but please try to work on your own without
looking at your colleagues work and copying.
b. You can use a sheet of blank A4 paper, pencil and colours.
c. No need to hurry, take your time, but I think 30 minutes should be enough
for you to complete your drawing.
d. When you finish, please clearly write your name, age and class on the back
of your drawing.
4. Children were allowed to draw freely on blank white A4 paper using HB and
coloured pencils or crayons only. As instructed, each child worked
individually, quietly and with minimal communication with the child sitting
next to him or her.
5. I went round the benches, supervising the task without intervening but to
answer any questions. The task lasted between 25 to 30 minutes. Just before
collection, children were asked to write their name, age and class on the
backside of the drawing.
6. After collection, I moved to a quiet room, called each child and individually
asked them about their drawings.
a. What is the drawing showing?
b. Did you draw any animals? Could you indicate and mention them?
c. Did you draw any plants? Could you indicate and mention them?
d. Apart from animals and plants, what else did you draw?
e. Why did you choose to draw this picture?
f. From where did you get ideas to produce your drawing?
g. Do you want to add anything else before you go?
139
7. I recorded answers into an information sheet (see appendix) for each drawing
per pupil.
8. I also audio recorded the structured interviews to that I could review each
and update the information sheet definitively.
The pupils were assured that I was only interested in the items they would draw
and not how well they could draw. It is important to assure people that the
exercise is not a “test” of their drawing skill, but rather an alternative way of
documenting and making visible their thinking and feelings about the focus of
the drawing exercise (Haney et al, 2004: 269).
Three weeks (postponed by a week due to a power failure) after the class task,
students visited the Natural History Museum to view the local habitat dioramas.
The class teacher, teacher assistant and the researcher (i.e. myself)
accompanied the children to the museum, where the curator greeted the group.
At the museum, the class teacher and assistant supervised the children, while I
conducted the research. The drawing tasks were done in the larger bird hall,
which leads to the adjoining but much smaller diorama room. The three classes
arrived at the museum in turns, an hour apart from each other. The space
available was adequate for a class of 20 pupils to work comfortably with
minimal disruptions and was easier to control.
140
The diorama room was too small to accommodate between 18 and 20 pupils
drawing on the floor. So the children drew in the more spacious bird hall,
on floor mats, using A4 paper and pencil colours. They worked in small
groups near each other, so they were supervised to ensure that each child
worked individually.
2. After they were asked to construct a mind map (they call it a ‘web’) based on
the main theme ‘animals and plants’ seen locally.
3. With the help of teachers the children entered the diorama area in groups of
four and observed each of the five dioramas always in the same order. They
were asked to look carefully and discover as many animals and plants as
they could. I was careful not to intervene or lead the children unduly to
avoid influencing their thoughts and so diminish the validity of the data
collected. I just stood at the side and observed, allowing the children to
freely interact with the dioramas.
4. After the diorama observation all pupils were given boards to produce
another drawing of their ‘favourite’ diorama. This drawing was done in a
hall just outside the diorama area and they had 10 to 15 minutes to
complete the drawing.
5. Children were asked to write their name, age and class on the back of the
drawing before they handed it in.
6. They were also asked if they wished to add anything to or modify their mind
map in the conclusion of the task, before leaving the bird hall.
7. The conversations by the children while observing the dioramas were audio
recorded. A detailed discourse analysis was not being envisaged, but rather
the capture of any relevant comments or behavioural insights.
The purpose of classroom and pre-diorama viewing activities was to probe the
children’s familiarity with and knowledge of local animals and plants before
visiting the museum. The purpose of the drawings done before viewing the
dioramas was to determine whether the novelty of the museum visit would
produce any significant differences in drawing to that done in class. The novel
museum context and the specimen exhibits at the museum would be expected to
influence to a certain degree their expression of mental models i.e. the
conceptual lens through which the dioramas would be observed and interpreted.
142
4.11 The Maltese natural history dioramas
In outlining the educational rationale behind the dioramas, the curator of the
museum stated that the settings were meant for visitors of all ages. One aim
was to offer a showcase of what some typical Maltese habitats have to offer
including an exemplar of the animals and plants that could be encountered in
such habitats. Another aim was to offer an opportunity for free choice
observation of unique museum exhibits representing flora and fauna in local
habitats. A third aim was to create conservational awareness and
environmental responsibility. His intention was to present an example of a
negative human effect on the environment. These aims guided the way the
research was carried out and which activities were done. Data collected and
analyzed shows how far the exhibits have influenced the children’s thinking and
visualization of local flora and fauna in Malta.
At the Natural History Museum of Malta there are five small habitat dioramas
housed in a narrow room, poorly illuminated and only allows for a handful of
visitors at any one time.
The figures 4-7 to 4-11, which follow show the five habitat dioramas at the
Natural History Museum at Malta with the animals and plants present listed
below each illustration.
143
Figure 4-7. House Yard habitat diorama.
Animals: Plants:
Cockerel Vine tree
Shrew Creeper
Cabbage butterflies (on flowers) 2 Types of flower (x 2,2)
Snails on twigs 2 Types of succulents (x 1,1)
Snails on wall
Bird on right hand side twig
Bird and nest in ventilator
Bird on window shutter
Bird on cane basket
Gecko on window shutter
Spider and web
Beetle in pathway
144
Figure 4-8. Agrifield Habitat Diorama.
Animals: Plants:
Wild rabbit, skink, wasp hive Trees (x3)
On soil: yellow wagtails (x3) and curlew Grass
sandpiper. Capers in rubble wall (x5)
On rubble wall: sparrow, hoopoe and
corn bunting.
On trees: bee-eater, golden oriole, cuckoo
& turtle dove. Mediterranean chameleon.
Animals: Plants:
Brown rat (x2), painted frog (x3) Common reed
Numerous Helix aspersa
Numerous other snails species of smaller
sizes and pointed shapes
Eight species of birds, one of which is in
flight.
145
Figure 4-10. Sand Dune Habitat Diorama.
Animals: Plants:
Little ringed plover (x2) on sand. Mediterranean Thyme.
Spotted Redshank on rock (r.h.s). Cane.
Sea gull on front of boat.
Mallard flying.
Bird resting on twig behind boat.
Dead sea urchin shells.
Squid endoskeleton (x2).
Swordfish vertebrae. Bivalve shells.
Animals: Plants:
Weasel on rock (on floor). Trunk with no leaves.
Brown rat on rock (on floor). Eucalyptus tree.
Bat flying, bat resting on tree trunk. Caper shrub (x2).
Night Heron and Starling on tree trunk.
Barn owl in bastion window.
Spurge Hawk moth on bastion.
146
4.12 Data analysis using Altas.ti
ATLAS.ti is based on the NCT (Noticing, Collecting, Thinking) model of
qualitative data analysis, where the three basic components are noticing things,
collecting and thinking about things (Friese, 2012: 92). It is a powerful
workbench for the qualitative analysis of large bodies of textual, graphical,
audio, and video data. The content or subject matter of these materials is in no
way limited to any one particular field of scientific or scholarly investigation. Its
emphasis is on qualitative analysis, however Atlas.ti also permits semi-
quantitative data analysis. The package deals with “knowledge management,”
which emphasizes the transformation of data into useful knowledge. ATLAS.ti
was originally designed for the social sciences, but it has been employed in areas
that were not anticipated such as psychology, literature, medicine, software
engineering, quality control, criminology, administration, text linguistics,
stylistics, knowledge elicitation, history, geography, theology, and law (Friese,
2012: 11).
It offers a variety of tools for accomplishing the tasks associated with any
systematic approach to unstructured data, e.g., data that cannot be
meaningfully analysed by formal, statistical approaches. ATLAS.ti helps you to
explore the complex phenomena hidden in your data. It offers a powerful and
intuitive environment that keeps you focused on the analyzed materials, for
coping with the inherent complexity of the tasks and the data. It offers tools to
manage, extract, compare, explore, and reassemble meaningful pieces from
large amounts of data in creative, flexible, yet systematic ways (Altas.ti 5.0,
2004: 2).
Create a
Hermeneutic Unit
Visualizing and writing
up results
Assign
Primary Documents
Discovering relevant
features in images
Creating codes
and memos
148
dioramas, were assigned as PDs; the Diorama was the HU to which the
drawings created at the museum, after viewing the dioramas, were assigned as
PDs and the Web is the HU to which the mind maps (children refer to these as
webs) were assigned as PDs. Drawings were very carefully and repeatedly
examined to identify relevant features that were subsequently tagged with codes
and memos added to record explanations given by the author of the drawing.
Memos contain information, which cannot be presented in drawing or is not
evident in the graphical composition. This information provides relevant details
such as what influenced the child to draw that particular scene or the reasons
for choosing to draw a particular diorama or for not drawing another one.
Memos are also useful to recount the sequential process of analysis.
A coding method was developed for analysing the drawing, in principle similar
to emergent analytic coding developed by Haney et al (2004: 252). A list of
features that the drawings contain was drawn; each feature was assigned a
specific code. The checklist was used to mark codes in each drawing generating
a cumulative count. Main code categories, such as animal and plant, were
assigned. In the case of animals, taxonomic sub-categories were added to better
classify the organisms included. Each animal included in the drawing was
linked in the appropriate taxonomic sub-category for example mammal, insect
or bird. Sub-categories were not added to the diorama drawings since the
organisms presented are pre-selected by the museum setting constructor and
children were not free to include any organism they could recall. A feature in a
drawing was coded by first selecting it using the PC mouse and than tagging the
selected area with the relevant codes. The selected area could include several
codes and also memos. The following two images are an example of how each
drawing, saved as a graphic file, may be analysed using the software Atlas.ti.
149
Figure 4-13. Coding pane in Atlas.ti (example 1).
These two pictures show a spit image of a drawing of the rural house yard
diorama. The drawing is clearly titled ‘il-bitħa’ meaning the yard, however it
very evidently shows the yard, with many of it’s physical features, animals and
plants all in their rightful position as located in the diorama. The analysis will
be treated in greater detail in the following chapter four, which will present the
complete results.
Figure 4-14. Coding pane in Atlas.ti (example 2).
150
The main section of the screen shows the primary document (drawing) with the
selected areas delineated by rectangles. The right hand side of the screen shot is
the margin area of Atlas.ti that shows vertical coloured bars, the size of which
corresponds with the height of the rectangular area in the drawing. Named
codes are tagged to each selected area forming a list that flanks the vertical bars.
Different layers of coding are shown in a different colour. It is also possible to
attach memos that are denoted by a red notebook icon visible in the first picture
above. Below is another example showing a drawing of the sand dune diorama.
Figure 4-15. Coding pane in Atlas.ti (example 3).
4.12.3 Networks
ATLAS.ti offers the possibility of creating graphical networks. An ATLAS.ti
network is the set of all objects and their links inside the Hermeneutic Unit
(HU). It exists independently of any display-oriented characteristics (layout,
colour, line width, etc.) and it is actually the logical structure of the HU's
objects. In contrast with linear, sequential representations such as text,
presentations of knowledge in networks resemble more closely the way human
memory and thought is structured. Cognitive "load" in handling complex
relationships is reduced with the aid of spatial representation techniques.
ATLAS.ti uses networks to help conceptualize the structure by connecting sets
of similar elements together in a visual diagram. In the network view it is
possible to express relationships between the elements (codes, quotations and
memos) that form the network. The elements become nodes, which are any
151
object that is displayed in a network view. It is possible to construct concepts
and theories based on relationships between codes and memos. This process
may uncover other relations in the data that may not be previously obvious and
still allows the researcher to instantly revert to his or her notes or primary data.
Table 4-4 is an example of how scoring was carried out on a drawing showing
the House Yard diorama.
152
Table 4-4. Scoring a diorama drawing for closeness to actual setting.
Student Nell drew 10 animals out of 16, 4 plants out of 8 and 6 physical
features out of 7 for a total of 20 items out of the 31 present in the diorama.
Drawing all of the 16 animals would give a
highest score of 10. Since the student drew
10 out of the 16, the score works out as:
10 × 10 ÷ 16 = 6 (rounded up)
Plant score:
4 × 10 ÷ 8 = 5
Physical score:
6 × 10 ÷ 7 = 9 (rounded up)
Total score:
20 × 10 ÷ 31 = 6 (rounded up)
Student also drew all 20 items in the
correct place as located in the diorama
returning a maximum context score as
follows: 20 × 10 ÷ 20 = 10 (max score)
In the following chapter, data obtained from of the class, pre-diorama and
diorama tasks set are presented, together with data from the webs and
interviews on all the drawings produced. A progressional analysis from class to
pre-diorama to diorama for each pupil is given and shows how drawing
153
develops from the class environment to the museum. Observations of pupils in
the diorama area are also included.
The next chapter 5 presents the results from the data collected, with the semi-
quantitative and qualitative analysis of the drawings and webs. A case study
from one pupil is given to provide an example of a complete data set.
154
5 Results
155
In this chapter I present a full account of how the data was analysed and the
findings that emerge from this analysis. The first part is an analysis of the
drawings collected during the class task and the museum tasks; pre-diorama
and diorama drawing as well as the webs. This is followed by a case study from
one pupil and a progressional analysis of drawings from class to museum tasks.
The chapter concludes with further analysis of data from interviews and
observations of pupils in the diorama area.
156
Context Drawing showing organisms in context, for example a farm, valley,
garden or county side.
Graphic A property of graphical nature: colour, black and white, labelling
and anthropomorphic feature.
Artefact Any feature that has a construction or man-made object.
Physical Any abiotic feature in the drawing, for example sun, rain and soil.
Each different item on a single drawing in the respective category was coded
once, meaning that a code of five animals for a drawing means that the child
drew five different animals. The highest number of codes (items) in one
drawing was 59, while the lowest was 9.
Table 5-2. Class Task HU category drawings and codes.
Figure 5-1. shows that the animal category scored the highest number of codes,
followed by plants with an appreciably lower number of codes. Almost all
drawings (97%) show at least a single animal, while 80% of drawings show one
plant. Animal code average per drawing (3.7) was significantly higher compared
with that for plants (2.0), bearing evidence to a greater preference for drawing
animals rather than plants. Considering the drawing as composition, 54% show
organisms in context, while the rest show isolated (unconnected) organisms or
out of context. This also explains the 93 physical (abiotic) codes present in all of
the 54 (88%) drawings, most of which were features making up the scene such
as soil, cloud, wind, river, rain, hills, ground, gravel, rock, sand, water, sea and
particularly the sun present in 60% drawings (N=37). Most pupils seemed
157
capable of producing a complete picture showing a scene of a place they were
familiar with such as a garden, valley, seaside, glasshouse or shop. In the
graphic category, 75% (N=46) drawings were in colour, while 25% (N=15) were
in black and white, and 34% (N=21) of drawings show labelled organism. A
good proportion (28%) of drawings (N=17) show anthropomorphism. Artefacts
were present in 63% of drawings (N=39) showing human constructions (n=60
codes) such as boat, rubble wall, house, glasshouse and road. There were also 3
other codes: farmer, hunter and fisherman.
Figure 5-1. % Drawings and codes for the categories in the Class Task.
100
80
60
40
20
0
Animal Plant Artefact Physical Context Colour B/W Anthrop Label
% Drawings % Codes
158
The number of codes in the animal category was further sub-divided into the
subordinate taxonomic groups amphibian, arthropod, bird, cnidarian,
crustacean, fish, echinoderm, mammal, mollusc and reptile. This provides a
more detailed picture of the types of animals that the children include in their
drawings. The animal category had the largest number of codes (35%) meaning
that it showed the highest variety of organisms. More than a third of the
animals drawn were birds (33%) followed by mammals (25%), arthropods (16%)
and fish (11%). It was interesting to note the following variety; 15 different
species of mammals, 11 species of bird, 5 species of arthropods, 2 species of
reptile, 3 species of fish, 2 species of mollusc, one amphibian, one crustacean
and one echinoderm.
Figure 5-2. % Drawings and codes in the animal subordinate taxonomic groups.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
% Drawings % Codes
159
Arthropod Ant, bee, butterfly, ladybird and spider.
Mammal Cat, cow, dog, donkey, hamster, horse, human, rabbit,
elephant, leopard, lion, tiger, monkey, mouse and
squirrel.
Mollusc Snail and octopus.
Reptile Snake and turtle.
Figure 5-3. shows that the animal category again scored the highest number of
codes, with plants scoring almost half the number. Most drawings (93%) show
at least a single animal, while 70% of drawings have presence of plants. Animal
code average per drawing (2.5) is again much higher than that for plants (1.4),
with both averages being considerably lower than the Class Task.
160
Compositionally, 61% of drawings show organisms in context compared to the
54% in the class task. Fewer drawings (60%; 58 codes) compared to Class Task
(88%; 93 codes) show physical (abiotic) codes present in drawings, most of
which were features making up the scene such as soil, cloud, wind, cliffs, rain,
rock, sea, sky, mountains, cave and the sun present in 24 drawings (44%). In
this case also most pupils were capable of producing a complete picture showing
a place they were familiar with such as a woods, field, farm, park and garden.
The number of drawings (37%) in colour is half that in the Class Task (75%) and
organism labelling is also appreciably reduced (10% compared to 34%). A
similar proportion (21%) of drawings (compared to 28%) show
anthropomorphism. There are considerably fewer pre-diorama drawings (33%
compared to 63%) showing artefacts with much less codes (n=26 compared to
n=60). Human constructions shown are: aquarium, rubble wall, aircraft, barn
and tool, with three other codes boy, girl, hunter, reader and worker.
Figure 5-3. % Drawings and codes for the categories in the Pre-diorama Task.
80
60
40
20
0
Animal Plant Artefact Physical Context Colour B/W Anthrop Label
% Drawings % Codes
161
Table 5-6. Pre-diorama animal subordinate group: drawings and codes.
Similar to the class drawings, the pre-diorama show the highest variety in
animals with a reduced number of codes (n=144) compared to the class task
(n=228). There is a clear shift towards birds (60% compared to 33% in class),
while more arthropods (18%) than mammals (13%) are seen here. The number
of animal species observed is 37 compared to 40. In terms of variety, the pre-
diorama drawings show more bird species (16 compared to 11 in class drawing),
less mammalian species (10 compared to 15 in class drawing) while arthropods,
reptiles and fish species included are very similar in both pre-diorama and class
drawings.
Figure 5-4. % Drawings and codes in the animal subordinate taxonomic groups.
% Drawings % Codes
Pre-diorama drawings also show fewer plants (n=78) compared to class (n=122)
and lower variety of plant species too (5 compared to 11 in class drawings). The
following seeded plants are shown: apple, cherry, pine, rose and sunflower.
162
Table 5-7. Type of organism drawn in the respective taxonomic group.
Categories for the Web Task were animal, artefact, habitat, plant and physical.
The following animal subordinate taxons are found in the webs: amphibian,
bird, crustacean, echinoderm, fish, insect, mammal, mollusc and reptile.
163
Table 5-8. Web Task HU category drawings and codes.
Figure 5-6. % Drawings and codes for the categories in the Web Task.
80
60
40
20
0
Animal Plant Habitat Artefact Physical
% Webs % Codes
164
Table 5-9. Web task animal category subordinate group drawings and codes.
% Webs % Codes
166
5.5 The diorama task
In this exercise, children had ten minutes to observe freely the five local habitat
dioramas, without any intervention from researcher or teachers. Immediately
after leaving the diorama room, they were asked to produce a drawing of their
favourite diorama. This task was central to the research and provides the main
data source.
The purpose of diorama drawings was to find out how the children perceived
the diorama, what captured their attention and what they did not notice. The
Diorama (HU) included the drawings (N=57) created during the museum visit,
meaning that the Diorama HU comprised 57 PDs (primary documents).
Analysis of these PDs generated 107 different codes, which were classified into
the following categories: animal, diorama, ex-diorama, human construct,
meteorological, non-diorama, physical, plant, agrifield, bastion, house yard
and sand dune. The agrifield, bastion, house yard and sand dune refer to four
of the five dioramas in the NHM, the fifth being the valley floor that no child
chose to draw. The following table explains the categories:
Table 5-11. Diorama Task categories defined
167
Bastion a drawing showing the fortification diorama.
House Yard a drawing showing the house yard diorama.
Sand Dune a drawing showing the sand dune diorama.
Every item on a drawing in the respective category was coded for all instances it
appears. In this case, it was vital to code all items since the aim of the
investigation was to elicit how and to what extent the pupils form a mental
model of the diorama they preferred. The highest number of codes in one
drawing was 44, while the lowest was 6.
168
Figure 5-8. % Drawings and codes for the categories in the Diorama Task.
% Drawings % Codes
Similar to the class, pre-diorama and web tasks, the animal category yielded the
largest number of codes (n=165; 32%) with only three drawings lacking animals.
Here again, plants score (n=70; 14%) much lower when compared to animals,
with artefacts scoring (n=91; 18%) higher than the plants. Most of the artefact
codes (68%) are man made structures seen in the House Yard diorama
drawings, while the remaining artefacts seen are the fishing boat (Sand Dune
diorama), rubble wall (Agrifield diorama), the fortification and the baked beans
can (both in the Bastion diorama). According to the curator, the baked beans
can was purposely placed in the diorama to attract attention, but surprisingly
one pupil only drew it.
Most drawings (82%) were done in grey pencil without any colour, while just
over half (55%) of the drawings showed labelling. More than half the drawings
(51%) showed a physical feature, with a rather low number of codes (n=32).
Most drawings (90%) show one of the diorama settings, with only six drawings
(11%) showing something else. Almost half the drawings (47%) feature an
object not found in the diorama (Ex-diorama) selected or any one of the other
settings. Meteorological features comprise 2% of codes and all being ex-
diorama items.
% Drawings % Codes
170
Table 5-14. Different items noticed and drawn from the four Dioramas selected.
Children seemed to notice most features (22) in the house yard diorama, while
in the other three they noticed a similar number of features (figure 4-9). The
general trend showing that animals were the most noticed and plants
appreciably less was observed in this case too.
Figure 5-10. Codes of the different features drawn in the dioramas selected.
20
15
Codes
10
0
House Yard Argrifield Sand Dune Bastion
171
Figure 5-11. below shows the scores for animal, plant, physical and context
aspects of the diorama drawings. Animal and plant refer to any such organism
from the diorama present in the drawing. Physical refers to all abiotic
components from the diorama, while context refers to the degree of closeness
between the drawing and the actual diorama setting.
Table 5-15. Diorama drawing compositional scores.
% Drawings
Score Animal Plant Physical Context
0 7 16 4 2
1 23 26 4 0
2 19 9 0 0
3 18 18 25 2
4 9 5 9 4
5 14 16 9 4
6 4 0 7 5
7 4 0 18 4
8 0 4 12 7
9 4 0 9 4
10 0 7 4 70
Most drawings, 82% scored from 1 to 5 for animal, 89% scored from 0 to 5 for
plant, 81% scored from 3 to 8 for physical, 88% from 1 to 5 for total features and
81% from 8 to 10 for composition. Animal and plants scored rather low,
physical scored higher while composition scored the highest. Few children
included more than half the animals and plants in the diorama, while they
tended to draw more of the physical features of the setting. Notably, 70% of the
drawings showing a diorama displayed all items in the same location as they
occur in the diorama: 16/22 house yard drawings, 8/12 agrifield, 10/14 sand
dune and 3/5 bastion drawings.
172
Figure 5-11. Scores of the main features drawn in the diorama drawings.
In the Class drawing the pupil represented a forest. The items drawn are a)
plants: four trees, felled tree, grass undergrowth; b) animals: an eagle, a
Toucan, rattlesnake, cobra, leopard, frog and crab in a lake and an insect caught
in a spider web attached between two trees. Trees show the standard two-
dimensional trunks with branching and the crown’s contour assumes an
undulating pattern with dimensions that are wider than the trunk, but not
showing any individual leaves.
173
All animals are drawn in two-dimensional horizontal body displayed in side
view, except for the insect and the eagle. The latter is presented in aerial view
with wings spread horizontally and placed in a central position on the page. The
Toucan is in side view with a prominent beak and with head, body, and tail
aligned horizontally. The rattlesnake is displayed in a long wavelike and curved
body suggestive of its motion. The cobra and insect are disproportionately
large, while the cobra appears static with an over sized head. The desire to
create a likeness to the real object is clear in the leopard, insect and especially
the Toucan. There is also an attempt to show motion in the leopard, eagle, frog
and crab.
When interviewed on the drawing, the boy confirmed the identity of each object
and stated that this was a forest. He was inspired by visits to foreign countries,
in particular by a trip to the Amazon forest. He enjoys reading about nature and
wildlife, and he also enjoys listening to his grand father talking about wildlife.
He wished to draw more snakes and birds, but did not have enough time to do
so.
174
Figure 5-13. Pre-diorama drawing by Andrew.
In the Pre-diorama drawing the pupils represented a park. The items drawn
are a) plants: one tree showing just a trunk, grass undergrowth and one flower;
b) animals: bird, moth, snake, fish and duck in pond and two bird nests in tree.
The tree shows the standard two-dimensional trunk with branching, but no
crown included.
In this drawing animals are also drawn in two-dimensions with horizontal body
displayed in side view, except for the moth. The bird and moth are presented in
aerial view with the moth placed centrally on the page. The duck is in side view
with a clear beak and with head, body, and tail aligned horizontally. The snake
shows a particular colour pattern and displayed in a long wavelike and curved
body showing its motion. Items are mostly proportionately displayed, with only
the moth appearing over sized in comparison. The desire to create a likeness to
the real object is seen in the moth, snake and especially the duck. An attempt
to show motion is evident in the snake, moth and bird.
This is also a balanced drawing, but less symmetrical than the Class drawing.
The moth is placed in the center here, along the vertical midline giving
prominence to the insect. Once again most items are placed at the bottom of
the page, with the evident park theme and logical use of colour. The open space
above is not coloured blue, but it evidently represents the sky with a Mandala
style sun in the corner. A direct ecological link between organisms is not
obvious, but the representation implies that the figures belong together in a
natural unit. In this drawing the background is not coloured, except for the
175
lower part with the glass undergrowth. However, even in this case the flora and
fauna are thematically linked.
When interviewed on the drawing, he did not have much to add to what he
drew. He confirmed the identity of each object and stated that this was a park.
Again he was inspired by a visit to foreign country, in this case a park he visit
while in England.
In his Diorama drawing task, the pupil was one of few to choose the Bastion.
Part of the trunk with no leaves and Eucalyptus are included, but the capers
were omitted. Fauna included were the bat flying, Night Heron on trunk, Brown
rat on rock and the Barn owl in bastion window. The following animals were
omitted: Weasel on rock, Spurge Hawk moth on bastion, and resting bat and
Starling both on tree trunk.
All animals are drawn in two-dimensions with horizontal body displayed in side
view, except for the bat that is presented in aerial view with wings spread out
horizontally. The flying bat is disproportionate in relation to the rest of the
items in the picture, while the Barn owl is only partially represented by the head
and large eyes. The desire to create a likeness to the real object is only evident
in the flying bat. The rat is displayed with all four legs in-line and bears little
176
likeness to a brown rat. The rocks and stones on the floor are clearly shown in
the lower section of the drawing. Worth noting is the inclusion of the baked
beans can, placed purposely by the curator to attract attention and highlight
human interference in habitats.
Compositionally the drawing is less balanced compared to the previous two and
is rather unsymmetrical. The Barn owl is placed in the upper central position,
with fewer items placed at the bottom of the page. The upper part of the
drawing does not represent sky or items one expects to see in the sky, but shows
the cut stone slabs that make up the fortification represented in this diorama.
The lower background is here also left devoid of colour with items appearing
somewhat unlinked and isolated.
Although there is a common style and representational mode in the plants and
animals drawn in the three drawings, there is a clear organizational difference
in composing the picture here with the previous two drawings. This drawing
was done from observation of a particular museum setting, with items located in
distinct positions and so the pupil was not at liberty to draw the various feature
where ever he desired, even if he could have done so anyway. In the Class and
Pre-diorama task the pupil was drawing mainly from imagination, that is, from
the mental image of the place he set out to represent on paper.
The boy was rather reticent during the interviewed on this drawing. He again
confirmed the identity of each item included and that the diorama selected as
actually the Bastion. He also confirmed that this was his favourite of the five
dioramas he observed, mainly due to the types of animals present in it. He did
notice the weasel that he did not draw due to time limits. Reading and visits to
foreign places of interest account for his rich biodiversity knowledge, for which
the extensive web is ample evidence.
177
Figure 5-15. Web by Andrew.
This student’s web was very detailed with numerous organisms mentioned
compared to the other pupils’ webs. This web included 5 different trees; and
each of the following different types of animal: 9 birds, 5 mammals, 5 reptiles, 3
amphibians, 3 insects, 2 fish and a bacterium. The variety of species mentioned
is quite remarkable, the birds being mainly local or migratory species, while the
rest are mostly non-local species. The preference for birds followed by
mammals and reptiles can also be noted here, notwithstanding that the pupil
possessed a greater knowledge of flora and fauna.
In the diorama hall, the group that Andrew was in were quite active and a girl
was leading the rest. This pupil, being rather reserved, did not speak much but
he was very attentive and seemed intent to capture as much detail he could. He
did mention the weasel and baked beams tin in the bastion diorama.
178
in organism representation without enhanced habitat representation. The rest
of the pupils’ (25%) drawings show an opposite effect, that is, loss of habitat,
reduced variety or more basic organism representation.
Most pupils (82%) included a similar number of birds in all three drawings and
with similar iconic mode for the birds drawn (64%). A third (31%) used a
different iconic representation in the diorama compared with the previous
drawings. A majority of students (60%) show birds in flight, with 23% of cases
flight is shown in all the three drawings. Children that drew flying birds in
previous drawings selected a diorama that shows a flying bird (Sand Dune) or
bat (Bastion). Others that selected another setting (such as House Yard)
actually preferred one of the other dioramas showing birds in flight. Very few
drawings (7%) show a feeding relationship. Very few pupils show
anthropomorphism, only one pupil did in all drawings, while nine pupils did in
only one of their drawings.
The importance of the organism to the child was highlighted by placing it in the
center of the picture, drawing it larger or colouring it. Almost half the pupils
(49%) drew birds in a central position in the three drawings, 30% drew different
organisms in the center in the different drawings, while in 21% of cases
comparison was not possible since either no organism was drawn or it was
drawn off center.
179
Figure 5-16. Drawings by Phyllisianne.
Class Drawing
In some drawings one can note a common theme in all drawings e.g. seaside.
The dioramas are only five selected constructed habitats, which offer children a
limited choice of interests to relate to. So those that had a favourite place such
as the seaside could relate to the Sand Dune setting with the very prominent
Maltese boat, as exemplified by Pauline’s drawing in figure 4-11 above. Others
settled for a setting, which was the closest image of the place they thought of
and drew previously. For instance those (42%) that drew a garden or the
countryside selected the ‘field’ or the ‘house yard’ that may elicit memories of
things one sees in gardens or in the countryside. A few had difficulty to decide
which setting to go for and tried to solve the problem by merging two or more
dioramas in one picture. Their work shows selected features from different
dioramas used to produce a composite drawing as can be seen in figure 5-17.
180
Figure 5-17. Drawing by Kurt – merging dioramas.
Class Drawing
Kurt first drew a garden in class and the pre-diorama with trees, flying birds,
nesting birds, a person on a bench, clouds and the sun. He then included some
features from the previous drawings (clouds and sun), added a butterfly in the
center and merged these with features from the house yard (on r.h.s of drawing)
and the bastion (on l.h.s). He tapped into various visual stimuli to produce
quite an elaborate composite diorama drawing. This instance shows how
intricate the drawing process can be for the child that seems to be
accommodating the newly acquired knowledge into his previous mental model.
181
habitat, narrative shown in drawing, greater elaboration in organism
representation and from charismatic animals to non-charismatic. Greater
sophistication is observed in a good proportion of the diorama drawings (47%)
that show perspective both in terms of relative sizes of organisms, but also in
their position in space and in relation to each other. However, perspective was
completely lacking in others. The sense of perspective in the constructed
dioramas is reflected in some drawings, but not in others. The following are
some representative examples that illustrate these observations.
Figure 5-18. Increased habitat representation by Paolo.
Class Drawing
Class drawing shows isolated animals and trees with no evident relationship,
while pre-diorama shows butterfly, bird and human in context of a habitat. The
diorama drawing is a well-represented sand dune, with one flying bird (in
action) and another on the boat, and an iconic sun. Pre-diorama and diorama
drawings are very colourful in contrast to the class drawing. The habitat is
clearly shown here and the diorama has helped the student to place the
organisms with greater accuracy. This pupil seems to have acquired the
narrative of the setting. Birds and plants are drawn in iconic mode, while the
human disappears but sun is inserted in the diorama.
182
Figure 5-19. Increased habitat representation by Nell.
Class Drawing
There are only isolated animals in class drawing, pre-diorama drawing shows a
basic level of habitat representation, while the diorama drawing has animals in
the house yard habitat and with some degree of perspective. There is better
habitat representation in the diorama with animals in iconic mode, but plants
are represented in a more realistic mode. A sense of habitat and ecology has
been acquired in this case.
183
Figure 5-20. Better habitat representation by Deon.
Class Drawing
The class drawing shows some context although not a clear habitat, but pre-
diorama drawing does not show any real narrative, with an oversized very well
drawn bird in the center, which is not connected to the rest. There is a hunter
shooting at a bird on the more realistically drawn tree. The diorama shows a
habitat with few animals and no plants, but animals change from charismatic
pheasant to the non-charismatic shrew, beetle and small bird.
184
Figure 5-21. Increased habitat representation by Marie Cloe.
Class Drawing
The class and pre-diorama drawings only show isolated birds with no sense of
habitat. Diorama drawing shows the agrifield with most of the animals (in
habitat context) present in the setting drawn in proportion and in perspective.
Setting has helped the student to place the organisms with greater accuracy in
the habitat. Pupil also seems to have acquired the narrative in the setting.
185
Figure 5-22. Improved habitat representation by Lenise.
Class Drawing
Class and pre-diorama are two very similar imaginative drawings, very colourful
with some degree of perspective, but with an oversized butterfly in the center.
There are fewer animals and flowers in the pre-diorama drawing, while diorama
drawing is in perspective, with butterflies and rooster in proportion to plants.
In this case too, pupil moved from an imaginative mode to a realistic mode, but
with reduced variety and richness in organisms.
186
Figure 5-23. Improved habitat representation by Jeremy.
Class Drawing
Class drawing shows no real narrative, but five ducks isolated from two trees
shown a saprophytic relationship with mushrooms. Habitat appears in pre-
diorama drawing with more accurate charismatic birds conflated in a local
habitat (Dingli Cliffs) showing the rock strata of the Maltese Islands. This
transformed to Sand Dune with many birds (now iconic) showing feeding
relationships, but accuracy lost and oversized. This is one of few rare cases
where the pupil used colour in the three drawings.
187
Figure 5-24. Improved organism representation by Claire.
Class Drawing
The class and pre-diorama drawings just show the pupil and her brother flanked
by two threes which transformed into a picture showing isolated animals,
flowers and the sand dune boat. The diorama seems to have helped her to focus
on drawing animals albeit not in context of a habitat.
188
Figure 5-25. Improved habitat representation by Thorin.
Class Drawing
Only ten isolated iconic animals seen in class drawing. The pre-diorama
drawing shows a hunter shooting at bird, no habitat shown but pupil included a
‘no hunting’ sign evidencing animal welfare and environmental concern.
Diorama drawing roughly shows the house yard habitat, with oversized animals
and no perspective. There is a development in that the pupil is now being able
to construct a habitat, but no sense of proportion is shown in the last drawing.
189
5.8.3 Change towards greater organism elaboration
A good proportion of pupils (28%) do not show any substantial change towards
increased habitat representation, but they instead focused on producing more
elaborate organisms. The following are two examples of this type of change.
Figure 5-26. Elaboration in organism representation by Kurt.
Class Drawing
The first drawing is a careful study of a bird’s head, while the pre-diorama
drawing shows two elaborately drawn parrots, in both cases isolated and with
no sense of habitat. The diorama drawing is a conflation of field and bastion
with the same graphically presented parrot inserted in the setting. There is a
clear sense of habitat in the diorama drawing, but the parrot is not found in this
setting. So the change in this case is from a strongly focused study to a more
generalised representation.
190
Figure 5-27. Elaboration in organism representation by Matthew.
Class Drawing
This set of drawings shows how Matthew is clearly versed towards producing
single elaborate birds, rather than pictures showing some form of narrative.
The duck in the diorama drawing is more realistically drawn compared to the
previous two birds, recognisably a Mallard (specimen found at museum).
191
animals in an ecological setting to isolated organisms, with reduced variety and
elaboration as the pupils progressed from the class to the diorama drawing.
Figure 5-28. Change toward reduced habitat representation by Liam.
Class Drawing
Class and pre-diorama drawings are very similar, the first in colour and shows
the charismatic lion, while the second is uncoloured with no animals. The
diorama drawing shows V-shaped birds and iconic butterflies with quite a few
iconic flowers and trees, but no sense of perspective and reduced elaboration.
192
Figure 5-29. Change toward reduced variety by Mark.
Class Drawing
193
Figure 5-30. Change toward reduced elaboration by Erica.
Class Drawing
Here we have a highly elaborate class drawing showing flying birds, breeding
bird, ducks and fish, with a strong sense of perspective and colour. This
transformed to just isolated and unconnected birds drawn in greater detail in
the pre-diorama and just three less elaborately drawn birds from a partially
represented sand dune diorama with no perspective.
194
Figure 5-31. Change toward reduced variety and habitat by Francesca.
Class Drawing
Another highly elaborate and colourful class drawing showing a girl and a few
animals and plants. This changes to a pre-diorama drawing with fewer animals,
the human is omitted, but an anthropomorphic sun is included. The diorama
drawing has no perspective and just the gecko and grass included are shown.
195
Figure 5-32. Change toward reduced habitat by Myron.
Class Drawing
In this set, it is clear how Myron’s drawings changed from a habitat to isolated
birds, but which are much more elaborately drawn although not in a habitat
setting.
196
Figure 5-33. Change toward reduced elaboration and variety by Chris
Class Drawing
The class drawing shows a colourful composition with various birds, ants, dog
and also including a hunter, with birds nesting too. In pre-diorama drawing
there are just isolated birds, horse and tree, while in diorama there is an
oversized flying bird, beetle, shrew, rooster and 3 trees all drawn in iconic mode.
This progression shows an overall reduction in variety and sense of habitat.
197
5.9.1 Drawing constraints
The physical environment of the diorama hall imposes limitations of space. It
was a closed ended corridor with very little floor space for a group of children to
sit down and draw with inadequate lighting for drawing comfortably. Instead,
children were asked to draw as a class on floor mats in the adjacent bird hall.
I was interested to know whether and to what extent the children encountered
difficulty in drawing and felt constrained by lack of time, since this may have
affected their performance. In the case of the Class Task 21% said they had
difficulty in drawing. Eleven pupils (19%) said they did not have enough time to
finish or include other items. In the Pre-diorama Task, three pupils (5%) found
difficulty, while one said he needed more time to draw. In the Diorama Task,
53% of pupils had difficulty to draw their preferred setting, while 20% required
more time to finish their work.
I noted that, in the Class Task and Pre-diorama Task, various pupils drew
features (mainly animals) and afterwards erased them. When asked why they
had done that, they responded that they did not think that what they were
drawing was ‘good enough’. Children believe that there were expectations on
the quality of their drawing and were not confident they were able to satisfy
such expectations. It seemed evident that certain children drew few features
because they lacked the confidence to produce a complete picture. The
following data excerpts illustrate this point.
198
Example 2.
Researcher: Would you have drawn anything else?
Catalina: Yes I would have liked to draw other things…
Researcher: Why didn’t you draw then?
Catalina: We have a tree with many leaves, but I could not fit it on the
page.
Research: You mean there wasn’t enough space on the paper?
Catalina: Yes, there was no space left…
Researcher: Where there any animals or plants you wished to draw?
Catalina: Some animals, but I don’t know how to draw them.
Researcher: Could you mention them?
Catalina: I have a small and a big dog…. I would draw the bulldog and the
small Chi Wawa and also some birds too.
Example 3.
Researcher: Are there any other animals you wanted to draw?
Matthew: …but it’s difficult to draw them…
Researcher: Could you tell me more about this?
Matthew: Perhaps a horse, my dad drew one for me once, but it’s too hard
to do.
199
Example 2.
Researcher: Why did you choose this setting out of the five?
Aaron: The one with the rocks was complicated, I was going to try the
one having the boat but it wasn’t turning out right because I had
too many things to draw…
Researcher: Therefore, you thought this (house yard) was easier to draw,
right?
Aaron: Yes
Researcher: But would you have liked to draw the others…
Aaron: Yes but they were too complicated
Researcher: Which one was your favourite then?
Aaron: The one with the boat (sand dune)… I started it, but saw it was
too complicated, look here it shows…(boat drawn but erased)
Researcher: Ah, so you were drawing it but changed your mind…
Aaron: Yes, yes because I couldn’t get it right.
In the class task, nine pupils mentioned a garden or woods; two mentioned
aquarium; ten mentioned TV, films, internet, books; four mentioned field or
countryside; three mentioned holiday place and two mentioned pets or farm
animals. In particular they mentioned the Mdina garden, which was in close
vicinity to their hometown and San Anton gardens, which is the popular and
public presidential palace garden. Some pupils also mentioned pet animals they
have at home and wild animals they see around them in various everyday
locations, such as their own or their neighbour’s garden, the countryside, near
the beach and a fresh water ponds in a field.
201
habitats, but far less plants (16% of cases) mentioning only 4 types and just one
physical feature (4% of cases).
It was clear that most pupils prefer to draw an animal if they could, but did not
because they thought it was too difficult or forgot about it when drawing. They
mentioned a variety of animals, including domestic species, with the dog and cat
being most frequently cited followed by bird and horse (see appendix). From
the diorama animals, birds and the weasel were most frequently mentioned.
The cultural aspect of the predominant tradition of bird hunting and trapping
was also noted. A pupil commented that he accompanies his father whilst
trapping, another drew a bird with blood stained plumage and yet another
included a hunter shooting in a restricted area.
1. The rats, snails, birds and weasel seemed to have caught the pupil’s
attention the most. Other animals noted were the bats, frog and rabbit. It
was rather surprising that very few talked about the rabbit even though it
was quite in a prominent position in the field.
202
2. Some pupils did manage to notice the less conspicuous animals such as the
shrew, gecko, owl, moth and lizard.
3. Animals in action, such as birds flying and snail crawling on the glass
pane, attracted considerable attention.
4. Children talk about certain animals (as mentioned above), but in their
drawings they show that they noticed, remembered and drew more
animals than they talk about.
5. During the interviews pupils mentioned animals, they noticed and wanted
to draw. All of these were heard in the conversations.
Quite interesting was how much interest the valley floor generated, especially
due to the rats, flying bird and apparently ‘moving’ snail on pane, yet no one
drew this diorama and only two pupils preferred to draw this instead of what
they actually drew. Certain features in the diorama might attract attention, but
this does not seem to be enough to encourage the pupils to draw it. As shown
earlier, perceived difficulty, time limits and perhaps aesthetic value could be
influencing their choice.
203
B. Pupils were scared of rats and made comments of disgust as soon as they
notice them.
Girl 1: “Look there’s a rat”.
All move toward the bastion and immediate notice the rat in this setting too,
one of them makes a disgusted comment on rat,
Girl 2: “Uuqq….that’s a rat”.
C. A new animal to the children seemed to be the weasel. The pupils did not
know what the weasel was, those that commented found it unusual and asked
what it was or mistook it for other species such as rat or tiger.
Girl 1: “Look, that is like a cheetah”.
Boy 2: “It looks more like a tiger, what is it?”
When they entered the diorama area, some pupils started to view the first
setting (house yard), but others just walk past and proceed to view another
setting (valley floor or bastion). Most pupils hovered from one diorama to
another while deciding which one to draw and very few decided quickly what
they would draw. Pupils discuss and ask each other what they would be
drawing.
One female pupil was concerned she would forget some of the features in the
diorama and so she asked the research (me) in a worried tone of voice: “How am
I going to remember all those things”.
Two to three pupils from each group lingered behind to try and get another look
before leaving to draw. They even asked the researcher if they could have
another look or returned to the area to look again.
204
One male pupil asked, “Do we have to draw everything?” after his female friend
told him they needed to do so. Clearly, the researcher did not require or ask for
this. A few also asked the researcher if their drawing was fine, showing concern
that theirs might be lacking the ‘expected’ quality. Others expressed difficulty
and confusion on what to draw.
The next chapter 6 is a full discuss of the main findings; the mental models the
pupils constructed and how they expressed the their models in terms of the
biota and ecological relationships shown; how pupils interacted and interpreted
the dioramas they viewed.
205
6 Discussion
206
This chapter is a comprehensive discussion of the findings presented in chapter
5. I start with looking at the mental models the Maltese children constructed,
how they interacted with the dioramas and how they interpreted these settings.
The main feature of this discussion is the new interpretative model I propose. A
worked example is provided to illustrate how the model can be applied in
practice to data from one pupil. I also consider that dioramas as a potential
model for learning about animals and plants.
Subsidiary questions:
1. What mental models (internal representation) of local animals and plants
do school children hold and how are these expressed in drawing?
2. How far is the mental model modified by the novelty of the museum?
3. Which dioramas are preferred, what captures the children’s attention and
what role does culture play in this? Which species of animal and plant do
children see most?
4. Which changes occur as a pupil progresses through drawing tasks?
5. Are dioramas appropriate as models in biological learning and for gaining
of representational insight?
207
Previous research has not considered how dioramas can enable the visualization
of animals and plants, while little research has dealt with the educational value
and role of habitat dioramas. Albeit the potential dioramas have to be a
valuable tool in biological learning, these unique museum settings do not
feature in any of the major museum texts by Black (2005), Falk and Dierking
(2000), Hein (1998) and Paris (2002).
In the following sections the data are considered in the light of these research
questions and how far they have been addressed. A constructivist perspective is
taken since it views learning as the building and refining of mental models.
Children construct mental models in ways that are specific and personal to them
(Hooper-Greenhill, 2000: 118-119). Drawings in this study adequately show that
mental models of different children are expressed in personal and distinct forms
that vary from those of their peers. It is recognized that children draw the
things that interest them and are important in their lives. In the latter part of
this chapter, I propose an interpretative model that shows the relationship
between the various elements that contribute to the building of mental models.
Asking the children the question; “Please, could you draw a place of wildlife?”
is different from asking; “Please, could you draw what you think nature is?”
The term ‘wildlife’ evokes thoughts of animals, mainly visible, predatory species
like lions and tigers while the term ‘nature’ evokes thoughts of trees and green
pastures (Keliher, 1997: 241). In her study, Keliher (1997) found that all
children included a tree in their drawings and mentioned trees, and birds when
asked to define ‘nature’. In the class and pre-diorama tasks, children were
asked to draw ‘animals and plants they see in Malta’ and they drew more
animals than plants (mainly birds, mammals and arthropods), but also wrote
far more animals than plants. The ability to recall animals in preference to
208
plants could be due to: a) greater knowledge about animals or b) the nature of
the question asked.
The class drawings are an expression of their present mental model, of the flora
and fauna of Malta. When observing and interpreting the dioramas, or any
other museum exhibit, the visitor draws on his or her existent mental model.
In other words, the visitor observes and interprets the dioramas through this
conceptual lens. The novel museum environment was expected to have an effect
on the mental model. Drawing at the museum confirmed this and for most
children the mental model expressed did to a certain extent change, even if not
for all in the same way. The mental model expressed in the drawings seems to
be influenced by the place where children settle to create their drawings.
However, the Maltese children included far more animals in the webs done at
the museum than they did in drawings, with much greater variety likewise
dominated by birds and mammals. The occurrence of plants in the webs was
slightly lower than that in drawings. Emulating the famous Ausubelian maxim
(Bell 1993: 6), Freeman (cited in Krampen, 1991: 42) holds that “the child
knows more than he draws”. The proportions of animals, plants, and the other
objects written in the webs (81%, 13% and <1% respectively) were almost
identical to those given by Yorek, Sahin and Aydin (2009). Drawing is certainly
a valid representational and research tool, but it may be limited in showing a
child’s comprehensive knowledge. I discuss this important issue in greater
depth later in this chapter and in the concluding chapter.
209
were almost only drawn in their standard sideways orientation, highlighting the
distinctive features of the subject. Four legged animal drawings showed some
degree of figural differentiation and display the right-angular directions seen in
humans. For example; mammals were drawn in horizontal body displayed in
side view, head in frontal view, four straight legs and an occasional tail. Fish
were drawn as an oval with the usual sideways fish-mouth, one or two eyes and
a tail. Birds were typically shown in aerial view with head, body, and tail
aligned horizontally with wings extending vertically. This is an indication that
the Maltese students were applying the principle of differentiation. A
development noted was the change from iconic to more realistically represented
animals and in some cases also plants. This shows a desire to capture the object
and represent it was evident in those pupils that drew one or two animals in
greater detail (Golomb, 2004).
Different children perceive and represent natural objects uniquely. This is also
quite eloquently manifested in the masterpieces of famous artists like Van Gogh
and Monet. Their attention to detail varies, with some children taking a more
generalized view of the ‘scene’ depicting broad shapes and borders with little
detail of plants and animals, but still using their own schematic graphics to
represent them in some way. Others, albeit fewer, show greater detail as their
attention is captured by the features of the organisms they observe. In this way,
children’s drawings became unique and personal, making generalization
difficult while analyzing the drawings. Each drawing is unique and every child
sees the diorama differently from their unique perspective, as influenced by
culture and habitus. No drawing is a photocopy, but rather children select
things that interest them influenced by what they already know. Drawings are
children’s personal creations and may be socio-culturally constructed in groups
(a class) as they interact with each other and the museum setting.
At the museum, pupils constructed their own mental model as they viewed the
dioramas in groups, i.e. in a social context and within cultural norms held. In
this case, the local habitat dioramas are the physical context and which raises a
question? Are dioramas museum settings exhibiting museum objects or are they
human constructs containing biological specimens (naturally occurring animals
and plants, not artefacts)? Mental models were expressed and mediated
210
through the cultural tool of drawing. The cultural aspect plays an important
role here. Drawing, as a representational mode, differs from speech and writing
in that it affords its own semiotic logic based on space and focuses on the salient
objects encounter rather than the sequence of events (Kress, 2010: 93).
The following section addresses the questions: what mental models of local
animals and plants do school children hold and which species of plants and
animals do children see most?
The class drawings presented the subordinate groups (taxon) amphibian, bird,
cnidarian, crustacean, fish, insect, mammal, mollusc and reptile, while the
museum drawings presented the subordinate groups bird, echinoderm, fish,
insect, mammal, mollusc and reptile. Birds (37%), mammals (24%), arthropods
(16%) and fish (13%) were the animals mainly drawn in class, while birds (60%),
arthropods (18%) and mammals (13%) were mainly drawn at the museum. A
comparative study among six European and American countries found the
following order of frequency: mammals, birds, invertebrate, amphibians,
reptiles and fish (Patrick et al. 2013). Other studies reported similar findings
(Chen and Ku, 1998; Trowbridge and Mintzes, 1985, 1988; Tunnicliffe et al.,
2008; Yen et al., 2007). Huxham et al.’s (2006) findings differ from these in
that children of all ages and both sexes scored better with mammals than with
birds and arthropods. In this study, differences in number of species was not so
striking; class drawings yielded 15 different species of mammals, 11 species of
bird, 5 species of arthropods, while museum drawings yielded 16 different
species of bird, 10 species of mammals, 4 species of arthropods. However, the
particular species (mainly bird and mammal) drawn in class differed
211
appreciably from those drawn at the museum. At the museum there was a clear
shift in favour of birds as opposed to mammals in the class drawings. The
novelty-factor of the field trip (Falk et al, 1978) must have, to a certain degree,
influenced what the children drew at the museum. The following examples
relate to the question: How far is the mental model modified by the novelty of
the museum?
Christian (9yrs) in class produced a colourful scene showing many birds, some
of them in flight, crawling up a tree (r.visualization.s), a dog, two trees and a
flower. In the center of the picture is an old man with a dog crossing bridge
with water flowing underneath. Right immediately behind is a hunter shooting
at a bird, which is seen hit. This picture has many aspects: colourful narrative,
birds in motion as a property of being ‘animal’, ecological relations, human
effect on wildlife, and sun in the typical Maltese blue clear sky. The pre-
diorama picture does not show the graphical richness of the class drawing with
just one mammal and 2 birds, but the sun still features.
212
Figure 6-2. Drawing sample by Mark.
Mark (9yrs) also produced a very colourful scene with four birds, an eagle, two
parrots and a budgerigar; two mammals, dog and cat; and two invertebrates;
butterfly and caterpillar. The depiction of the parrot shows a feeding and
caring relationship, while the butterfly shows reproduction/metamorphosis.
Aspects of this picture are: colourful narrative, birds in flight, ecological
relations, reproduction and again the sun but lacking sky. The pre-diorama
picture just shows two predatory birds exhibited there and even the sun is
absent.
Figure 6-3. Drawing sample by Erica.
Erika (9yrs) produced an artistic picture, with iconic aspects such as the ‘V’
shaped birds, but also different representation for ducks, oval fish and lolly pop
trees. Again one notes a preference for birds and no mammals, with
213
reproductive features of the nest and eggs. Her pre-diorama picture reinforces
preference for birds, but includes species found in the bird hall, drawn as
isolated objects with no colour.
Figure 6-4. Drawing samples by Lenise, Dale, Andrew and Gerald.
214
Lenise (9yrs) drew two very similar drawings in composition and iconic forms
used despite the different context. Dale’s (9yrs) drawings also show many
similar iconic forms, but with slight differences in composition e.g. sun, cat,
glasshouse and butterfly. Andrew’s drawings also show similar forms, but with
more items in the class drawing, while Gerald’s drawings show a pet
shop/garden center with some difference in bird iconic mode. Although
generally there are differences in the class and pre-diorama drawings, some
children produced very similar representations. Some individuals do appear to
hold constant mental images even when exposed to novel environments and
varying stimuli.
Which species of animal and plant children represent most is also influenced by
culture. Children’s drawings make explicit their ideas and attitudes that are not
free from stereotypes and simplifications that exist in culture (Moussouri, 1997).
The data of this research broadly support the strong presence of birds in
Maltese culture. The natural history museum also reflects this greater
importance to birds by affording its largest hall to them. In one of the few
research studies done locally, 94% of year 5 and year 6 primary students
selected birds as forming part of the environment (Buttigieg, 2001: 38).
Animals mentioned are particular to the country suggesting that children gain
knowledge about local animals from daily observations (Byrne et al., 2011). The
horse is the largest mammal in Malta and pigeons are commonly reared birds,
while the sparrow is the most common wild bird. A variety of migratory birds,
such as the eagle, visit the island, but these are very rarely encountered. On the
other hand, domestic species such as cats, dogs, cows and horses are common in
urban and suburban areas. So the predominance of birds is somewhat
surprising, but could be due to the almost total lack of wild mammals living in
Malta and those still in existence are rare and relatively inconspicuous such as
the wild hare, weasel and shrew. However, this is less surprising if one
considers that birds are culturally important due to the ever controversial
sporting traditions of hunting and trapping that raise passionate arguments
between bird conservationist groups and the hunting lobby. The organisation
Birdlife (Malta) is quite active and regularly promotes bird conservation and
protection in schools. On the opposite front, the hunting lobby is politically
quite influential. The discovery of a shot protected species immediately hits the
215
news and holds the agenda for the week. Children may at home have stuffed
birds of prey or may have seen a specimen or two at someone else’s house. A
bird is also a common pet in many Maltese homes.
This research also shows that arthropods such as ant, bee, butterfly, ladybird
and spider ranked more highly in frequency among Maltese children.
Bartoszeck et al. (2009) found that the bee, cockroach, beetle, ant, cricket and
dragon-fly were most popular with children from northwestern Brazil.
Invertebrates such as the snail, butterfly and spider are the least common
species to be considered as animals (Bell, 1981; Chen and Ku, 1998; Trowbridge
and Mintzes, 1988; Tunnicliffe et al., 2008).
Research studies on students’ views about animals indicate that they were
mostly interested in vertebrates, pets (cats, dogs, horses) and exotic species (e.g.
dolphins, tigers, lions) (Braund, 1991, 1998; Lindermann-Matthies, 2005). The
mammals drawn in this research were mostly endemic or domesticated species
(cat, cow, dog, donkey, hamster, horse, bat, rabbit, rat) and far less exotic
species (elephant, leopard, lion, tiger, monkey, kangaroo, squirrel). Similarly,
other research showed that American children were more interested in endemic
animals compared to national or international animals (Patrick and Tunnicliffe,
2011: 639; Trowbridge and Mintzes, 1985, 1988). However, Tunnicliffe et al.
(2008) in another study with young Maltese children found that they mostly
mentioned exotic non-endemic animals such as tiger, lion, crocodile and giraffe.
Such a finding is in accordance with what the children in this research listed
mostly in their webs, that is, non-endemic mammals such as whale, cheetah,
zebra, koala and deer. In their webs, children wrote names of animals and it is
known that writing affords a different semiotic logic to drawing (Kress, 2010:
93). Therefore, only the web data seems to confirm what previous research
found that students from Malta, New Zealand, Taiwan and the UK have tended
to name exotic, non-endemic species found in zoos such as the giraffe, elephant,
and tiger (Bell, 1981; Chen and Ku, 1998; Patrick and Tunnicliffe, 2011;
Tunnicliffe et al., 2008; Yen et al., 2007).
216
et al., 2008). None of these species are present in Malta and children would
have only seen them in the media or at a zoo/water park while visiting a foreign
country. Likewise, humans featured at a relatively low frequency (Yen et al.,
2007). Drawings (13%) did however include fish, although one would have
expected a higher frequency given that Malta is a small island and the sea is only
a few kilometres away.
In both class and at the museum, just before viewing dioramas (pre-diorama),
most pupils were capable of producing a complete picture showing a
recognisable place they were familiar with such as a garden, valley, seaside,
glasshouse or shop in class and woods, field, farm, park and garden at the
museum. In class, 86% of drawings, compared with 67% at the museum,
showed organisms in context and 74% compared with 53% at the museum,
showed a habitat. At the museum, however, more children drew individual
drawings of objects represented in absolute isolation with no context.
Tunnicliffe et al. (2007) reported similar findings in a study of students drawing
pigeons. Graphically, 75% of drawings done in class were in colour (37% at
museum), while 25% were in black and white (63% in museum). Older children
are expected to commit more to visual realism, complexity and colour (Cox,
2005: 239; Piaget and Inhelder, 1967; Tunnicliffe et al., 2007: 17). Children
mostly used the iconic mode to represent animals and plants in their class and
pre-diorama drawing which is indicative of intellectual realism. The Maltese
children in this research show a greater degree of visual realism in the their
diorama drawings, however the iconic mode remains prevalent.
The context (class or museum) where drawings were done is a major factor in
the use or otherwise of colour. The comforting and familiar environment of the
classroom is conducive toward good compositional and artistic performance.
Drawing and painting during art lessons is done in class, albeit art being a
peripheral area in the curricular.
218
The museum was a novel space and the children could only draw on the floor
using a clipboard. Few drawings showed anthropomorphic features. In class
drawings of human features were present in 63% of drawings (33% in museum),
most of which were man made objects such as a boat, rubble wall, house,
glasshouse, road, aquarium, aeroplane, barn and tools. The pre-diorama task
produced fewer codes than the class task, which was rather surprising.
However, this was the purpose of the pre-diorama task: to see if children would
produce any significant changes in type and quality of the museum drawing
when asked to draw a place with animals and plants.
A familiar place with children is the internal yard of traditional Maltese houses
and this could explain why the House Yard featured most frequently (39%) in
the drawings. Children noticed, as gauged through the content in their
drawing, most features (22) in the rural yard diorama. The construction of
meaning is partly shaped by prior knowledge and experience, and by how the
past is related to the present (Hooper-Greenhill, 2000: 118-119). However, the
Agrifield and the Sand Dune were also commonly selected and represent two
219
sites frequently encountered in the countryside and at the sea-side. This is
another indication that interest arises from recognition of the familiar and what
is already known (Hein, 1999; Tunnicliffe, 2009; Scheersoi, 2009). It must be
noted that choice of diorama was also affected by actual or perceived difficulty
in drawing. The question of discrepancy between (cognitive) competence and
(drawing) performance is treated in a forthcoming section (Hopperstad, 2010:
432; Piaget and Inhelder, 1967: 71;). Other than the limits of our mental
representations, an array of other factors constrain our reconstruction such as
nature of the task, immediate context, our arousal level and mood, which may
all effect how we build meaning from our incomplete knowledge structures.
The general trend showing that animals are the most noticed and plants
appreciably less was observed in each diorama drawing. A good number (75%)
of drawings featured a least one plant, but the total number of plants (14%) was
half that of animals (32%). Human artefacts (man made structures) seem to be
more important to children than plants.
The apparent disregard of child for plants has been previously reported in
literature. Wandersee and Schussler (2001) coined the term plant blindness
and argued that two possible indications of this might be: a) the idea of plants as
just the backdrop for animals and b) failing to notice plants in the environment.
Plants in the local habitat dioramas at the NHM in Malta are located in
prominent positions and not just serving as a background for animals. Motion
was most frequently associated with the concept life. Studies done at different
ages showed that the main reason for students’ interest in animals rather than
plants was movement (Kinchin, 1999; Wandersee, 1986). So it would seem that
children perceive the sessile nature of plants as lifelessness.
An interesting observation was that almost half (47%) the drawings contained a
feature not present in the dioramas, showing an evident tendency to insert
organisms or objects from outside the diorama. Pupils construct their own
mental model as they view the dioramas, their prior knowledge influencing this
process. Some of the students express a mental model that is in part a
composite of what they already hold in their memory and what they assimilate
from observing the diorama. In this way they are reconciling what they already
220
know with the ‘new’. Litson and Tunnicliffe (2002) reported similar findings
with children drawing apples from life and memory. Actual first-hand
observations were made, but the presence of features not seen suggests that
children draw from their existing mental model even when making a drawing
from real life. Results in this thesis support the view that intellectual realism
and visual realism, as explained in theories of Luquet (1927) and Piaget (1969)
may coexist. Drawing ability is considered to be a more fluid process, where the
child progresses through the drawing development stages, but can easily slip
back to a previous stage if they found it useful to do so (Symington, 1981: 45;
Krampen, 1991: 38; Cox, 2005: 73). Results also confirm Bruner’s belief that
children are capable of both ways of representation at any time and also
Gardner’s assertion that people have different levels of simultaneous
development in varying domains or multiple intelligences (Robson, 2006: 16,
33).
Also, a pupil does not simply retrieve a holistic mental replica of knowledge held
in memory. Instead, the student retrieves elements of the partial representation
he/she has stored of the object or concept (Rapp and Kurby, 2008). It is not
necessary to represent all that is observed, known and remembered. A person
selects what is of immediate interest where features are not shown in their
entirety (Mavers, 2009: 265; Cox, 2005: 75). What ultimately fills up the blank
sheet is a representation of objects previously encountered and others from the
observed setting.
Apart from content, the drawings were also analyzed in relation to diorama
composition. Most drawings contained a low number of animals and plants
present in the diorama. Few children included more than half the animals and
plants in the diorama, while they tend to draw more of the physical features of
the setting. Children missed the less conspicuous biota or omitted what they
could not draw. There is a tendency to notice the larger animals or the unusual
or unexpected.
Notably, most drawings (70%) display all items in the same place as they occur
in the diorama indicating an accurate spatial perception (high acuity). The
viewing of the dioramas acts as a trigger for children to assemble their related
221
memories about the topic and compile a personal representation of the topic. In
drawing, children recorded selective features that they find most relevant.
These are generally connected with their personal experiences of everyday
observations of animals around, media representations and narratives.
There is also an aspect of scale and perspective in drawing. Very few class and
pre-diorama drawings show a sense of perspective and animals drawn in
proportion to the other items in the drawing. However, children (40%) show a
greater sense of perspective and depth through their diorama drawings.
Evidence points to an association between producing a diorama drawing and
increased sense of perspective.
Figure 6-5. Drawings by Benjamin
Class Drawing
Various pupils justified the absence of further organisms in their drawing due to
difficulty or insufficient time, stating that they would have liked to draw more.
Limitations in drawing ability, also noted by Hopperstand (2010), Cox (1992),
and Anning and Ring (2004), were evident in sets of drawings showing just an
222
animal or two drawn in very basic form. However, some pupils preferred to
concentrate on drawing one animal in greater detail instead of drawing many
items, which are equally time consuming and require commitment. The
drawings below clearly exemplify this.
Figure 6-6. Drawings by Nathan
Class Drawing
223
unknown trying to produce a more faithful drawing. Children (5-8yr olds)
produce different drawings when they draw from imagination compared to
when they copy an object (Gardner, 1980: 164).
Figure 6-7. Progression of mental model from Class to Diorama.
At the museum, children mainly drew from imagination, but also party
influenced by previous knowledge and now also the novelty factor of the
unfamiliar museum. Iconic mode is still predominant at this point. The
evidence from class and pre-diorama drawings (museum) are indicative of
Intellectual Realism as coined by Luquet and Piaget. The mental model is still
mainly formed by ‘what the child knows.’ The diorama drawings are now the
result of observation and also in some cases imagination. Drawings are still
mainly iconic, but they increasingly show organisms in context. Students show
a greater degree of Visual Realism here, drawing things they ‘see’ and
representing these as they occur. However, most students still resort to their
iconic forms to show what they saw thus operating from Intellectual Realism.
Arnheim (1974) suggested that a child will draw an object which will show the
defining features (as the child see’s them) in the simplest way for the child to be
able to draw them within a piece of paper (2D space).
This would suggest that the Representational Stage has been reached by most
pupils, that is, when the child makes basic and generalised representations of
organisms. The human figure consists of a round form, inner shapes that
become the eyes and arms as two lines radiating from the circle. The child
224
draws just a “dog” rather than his or her dog (Garden, 1980; Kellogg, 1970;
Lowenfeld, 1963, 1964; Striker, 2001). Apart from the principle of
differentiation that applies broadly across a wide range of tasks and subject
matter, a second principle becomes evident. This is the desire to create a
likeness to the object. This desire to capture the object and represent it
truthfully guides the direction the differentiation of form takes.
When they were asked to draw in school and pre-diorama, children did so from
imagination and previous knowledge while it was increasingly from observation
during the diorama task. Most class and pre-diorama drawings were complete
constructions of scenes created in the minds of the children, such as gardens,
forests and beaches. The diorama drawings were done from looking at
particular settings, and so show a personalised representation of the preferred
setting. This left less room for creativity, and rather drawings showing varying
degrees of resemblance to the dioramas. However, almost all diorama drawings
show modifications from the actual, where the pupils give their personal ‘touch’
to the drawing by selecting items to represent from the setting and adding
others from their memories.
Children were cued into noticing by the instructions given to draw, which is a
form of scaffolding as Bruner explained it. More knowledgeable peers aid in the
discovery and interpretation of animals and plants in the diorama. Viewing of
new animals and plants in the dioramas has the potential to result in a form of
cognitive imbalance as theorised by Piaget. Children accommodate new
understanding into their existing knowledge, but could this is appreciably
enhanced if assisted by a more knowledgeable other (Jensen, 2011).
225
6.5 An interpretative model
Sociocultural theory is linked to activity theory, but in the latter emphasis is on
the activity itself, while sociocultural theory emphasizes mediation (Smidt,
2009: 90). To understand how children make meaning with drawings we need
to search for the interests that drive them, as these, according to Kress (1997, p.
19), are always reflected in the drawing.
226
Table 6-1. Interpretation Model terms defined
Group The group of people i.e. friend or family, with whom the
subject experiences the artefact.
In the Activity Systems the object is analogous to the focus here, but here it
refers to a habitat or a natural object rather than objectiveness of the reality,
which for Leont’ev has social and cultural properties. For the “person-object-
relation” (POI) theory the creation of interest needs a situation-specific
interaction between person and the object (Deci and Ryan, 2002). The focus
generates situational interest that is important for learning particularly in non-
formal learning settings (Scheersoi, 2009: 10). Situational interest emerges
from the viewing of the diorama, but individual interest is also required and this
resides within the individual or the subject.
Subject has the same meaning or the person engaged with the exhibit. Do the
visitors see the dioramas as representations of a natural setting? What is
obvious to the expert might not be so to the novice. Primary school children are
normally novices to learning from visualizations. There is also the risk of dual
representation; novices may focus attention on the object itself rather than the
intended meaning.
227
Community is here the group or all those involved in interacting with artefact.
In the sociocultural context learning occurs while experiencing a museum
artefact with other pupils. Experiences initially with others on the inter-mental
plane then individually experiences are internalized on the intra-mental plane.
Culture: The social constructivist would consider the role of culture and of peers
as children interact in groups. Wertsch (1991) does not consider the person as a
decontextualized individual, but reasoning is conceived to be an inherently
social and cultural process of meaning making. It is interesting to see how
228
children’s drawings make explicit their beliefs and attitudes, which are not free
from stereotypes and simplifications that exist within the culture of the school
(Moussouri, 1997: 41-46). Drawing as a mode that is socially shaped and
culturally given resource for meaning making. Drawings from different
societies and regions of the world do not support the notion of a universally
valid, culture-free instrument for cognitive assessment (Golomb, 2004: 343). It
is well recognized that children draw the things that interest them and are
important in their lives, but this varies in different cultures.
Mental Model: As each person has their own mental maps of knowledge
depending on their prior cultural and biographical experiences, each person will
process new matter in ways that are specific to them as individuals (Hooper-
Greenhill, 2000: 118-119). The child’s personal knowledge of a phenomenon or
main features of an object are held in his or her mental model and when asked
to draw, the child does so from the internal model (Reiss and Tunnicliffe, 1999:
142 and Cox, 1992: 88-91).
The observation of the Sand Dune diorama (artefact) results in the creation of a
mental model, which is than expressed as a drawing. This representation is a
likeness or simulation of the museum object. In learning we often use an
229
external representation (artefact=diorama) to build an internal representation,
held in the viewer’s mind. However, unlike external representations, there is no
tangible evidence and we cannot manipulate mental representations. Very
often, we must convert our mental representations into external presentations.
The child’s personal knowledge of a phenomenon or main features of an object
are held in his or her mental model and when asked to draw, the child does so
from the internal model (Cox, 1992: 88-91; Reiss and Tunnicliffe, 1999: 142).
The child’s representation of the diorama may be seen in the following figure.
Figure 6-9. Jeremy’s Sand Dune representation.
There are some similarities, such as the bird on the boat, the flying bird, the two
brown birds on the left and the bird on the rock on the right. However, there
are differences too, such as the bird opening the mollusc shell (central), the blue
background, no reeds drawn and notably the boat facing the other way. These
differences are the evidence of previous knowledge merging with what was
perceived from the diorama. During the interview, Jeremy expressed his
interest in wildlife, especially sea life and sea birds. He read about the bird
opening mollusc shells and wanted to add seaweed too. The class and pre-
diorama also show evidence of prior knowledge from observation or local
habitats and media sources. The cultural influence is noted in the inclusion of
blue ‘sky’ background and the rather standard way the birds were represented,
that is, in side view with beaks, both legs, eyes and in aerial view. Golomb’s
(2004) findings on graphical representation and central positioning of animals,
and balance and linking of the different features in composition on the drawing
are reflected in Jeremy’s drawing. The choice of diorama was influenced by the
child being an island inhabitant and so well acquainted with the seaside
habitats.
230
Figure 6-10. Applying the Interpretative Model.
The web done by Jeremy includes a variety of organisms, which shows that he
possessed a wider knowledge of animal species than he included in his
drawings. Almost all of the species mentioned were non-endemic and mostly
vertebrates.
The model could also be applied to the class and pre-diorama drawings. The
pupils (subject) also did these in a group in class or at the museum. In this case
the mediating tools (artefact) were books, pictures, museum exhibits and
multimedia. The focus in this case was the local cliff formations (at Dingli) with
predatory birds (seen at the museum) inhabiting and nesting the cliffs.
Figure 6-11. Jeremy’s local cliff and predatory bird representation.
The above drawing is the expressed model of the his mental model constructed
by knowledge gained from books, media, travel and direct observation of local
habitats and museum exhibits. The pupil used this previous knowledge to
create a mental image, which was subsequently expressed in the drawing above.
231
Therefore, the Interpretative Model can potentially be applied to different
learning situations in science and other areas that employ the use of various
types of mediating tools, in formal, non-formal and informal settings.
Although the model is undoubtedly useful it does have limitations. First of all it
assumes that the subject uses the artefact affectively as a mediating too, but this
might not be the case. It is not certain that the artefact would actually help
interpret and understand the focus, the subject could effectively concentrate on
specific items in the setting ignoring the bigger picture. This is not to say that
no learning occurs, but not as might be intended by the museum or the learning
provider. There might be features that distract the subject or capture his/her
attention for aesthetic reasons only. The degree or quality of interaction
between the subject and group may be difficult to determine.
The mental model is very personal and varies from person to person. Being so
intangible, one can never be certain what mental image a person really holds or
how this is modified and developed by the learning experience. On the other
hand the expressed model is almost never a ‘true’ replica of the mental model.
The expressed model, such as a drawing, is normally a selection of what really
interest that person. It is usually a mixture of what is being observed and
previously acquired images from earlier learning. In my model, I also include
the effect of culture and previous knowledge on the subject and his/her mental
model. These are both long-term factors, which influence the way persons
learn, acquire new knowledge and build mental models. However, it is difficult
to assess the effect these have on the learner and his mental model.
232
atomic structure and molecules or seek to physically embody abstract ideas or
complex theories. The dioramas here did capture the visitor’s attention to stop
and look with meaning. Data from the dioramas (drawings and interviews)
clearly show that pupils in this research acquired biological knowledge and
include organism and artefacts from what interests them, example they
included recognisable birds or butterflies mostly and physical structures like
buckets, spades, the sun and clouds. A majority of pupils selected a diorama
similar to a place they were familiarity with, example choosing the Sand Dune if
they liked the beaches (Garibay and Gyllenhaal, 2015).
233
clearly telling the story as depicted by the diorama, an ecological story in this
case.
Smaller dioramas, like those found at the Natural History of Malta, offer greater
potential for learning from a short museum encounter (Peart and Kool, 1988:
127). Dioramas provide children with opportunities for 1) observation, 2)
classification and naming, 3) habitat and ecological appreciation and 4) cultural
exposure. There are however two issues:
1. In dioramas organisms are static, so this might be problematic in the sense
that children associate ‘life’ with motion, if it moves then it’s alive. In fact most
pupils drew birds in flight or other animals such as butterflies in motion.
2. It is not desirable for pupils to have a model of the environment as simply a
background against which isolated organisms stand (Tunnicliffe and Reiss,
1999). Habitat dioramas do, to a certain extent, present animals and plants in
this way even though attempts are made to present animals in motion, e.g. bird
in flight or snails crawling on glass pains. Nonetheless they are still motionless.
Learning is embedded within social events and occurs as a person interacts with
people, objects and events in the environment. Viewing a diorama is also a
social experience and varies depending on the culture from which the
participant hails and the context and culture in which they are viewed
(Tunnicliffe and Scheersoi, 2015). Pupils observed the dioramas in groups of 4
and were allowed to speak and exchange ideas, as a social unit within the
cultural setting of the natural history museum of Malta.
234
Learning about the environment and science is equally effective outdoors as it is
in the classroom. Children of different ages come to the classroom with their
own ideas about and experiences with animals (Patrick and Tunnicliffe, 2011:
640; Tunnicliffe et al., 2008: 220). In this research, the order of importance of
the knowledge source was: a garden or woods (close to their home town),
countryside, television, films, internet, books, pets, farm, holiday and home. To
Maltese children school and books are secondary to direct observation as
reported by Bartoszeck et al. (2009) with Brazilian children and Tunnicliffe and
Reiss (1999) in a study with English children, thought in the latter case home
was the first choice. Huxham et al. (2006) also in the UK, cited television, films
and book as the main sources, while in one of few studies done in Malta, Gatt et
al. (2007) mentioned parents as the main source. Very few children in this
research mentioned parents or family members.
Children in this study spent time in the countryside surrounding their home
town or in the nearby Howard Gardens where they have opportunities to
observe animals and plants. The media sources, TV program, internet sites
accessed, type of film or books read might not have adequate scientific content
on animals and plants. Children do spend appreciable time watching TV and
browsing the internet, but they probably follow program or films on various
subjects other than wildlife. So these results do not support what Huxham et al.
(2006) stated that cultural sources of information about wildlife are more
influential than direct observations. The reduced importance of school and
books is not very comforting for science educators promoting leaning in schools
(Tunnicliffe and Reiss, 1999: 146). It is also a reflection on the little time being
spent in Maltese primary schools on science education in general (Martin et al.,
2011). However, it is reassuring that out-of-school experiences are still an
important means of learning.
235
variable during field trips. The novel field-trip factor was not a barrier to
learning, but rather an interaction between the child and her environment
(Falk, Martin & Balling, 1978: 7; Stronck, 1983: 289). The children in this
research were new to the museum environment and this did seem to affect the
children’s behaviour and level of interest in a positive way.
Pupil behaviour could also be a result of teachers acting as guides at the NHM of
Malta since there were no docents or museum educators as yet there. Students
on unguided tours found the museum to be more exciting, less confusing, and
more useful, and the majority (50%) of students preferred a docent as their
teacher when visiting the museum (Stronck, 1983: 288). Students also wished
236
that they could touch and feel more things, but unfortunately the NHM of Malta
provides no opportunities for touching and feeling objects (Buttigieg, 2001: 55).
When learning outside the classroom was an integral part of the curriculum,
this alleviated the demands on staff for planning of educational objectives and
the practicalities of the visit (OFSTED, 2008: 22-24). The OFSTED (2008)
report refers to the English situation, but its general conclusion may well apply
to Malta where the educational system was quite similar to that in Britian.
Notwithstanding that not all worked out as planned, the teachers commented
that they had never been to a visit that was so well organized with well planned
activities to aid the children’s learning at the museum.
On arriving at the museum, practically all the children were fascinated by the
bird displays in the open bird hall housing a vast array of resident and mostly
migratory bird species. Children were struck by the variety, size and plumage of
the birds on display. Some children noted that some bird specimens were
missing legs, eyes and other structures. Children and teachers commented on
the presence of dead preserved animals in the museum. Showing awareness
about animal welfare and cruelty, they enquired whether the animals had been
killed for the purpose of producing exhibit specimens. I responded by briefly
explaining how animals were preserved using the technique of taxidermy and
that none were purposely killed for displayed in museum. Two students were
observed roaming about and did not hand in their work.
The children’s visit to the NHM was part of their environmental education and
also a means of enhancing their awareness of local animals and plants. Most
effectively managed schools and colleges in England included learning outside
the classroom as an integral part of a well-planned curriculum (OFSTED, 2008:
4). Learning in non-school settings on field trips and visits to museums was
strongly connected to school curriculum and learning activities (Dierking, 1991).
In-school and out-of-school learning experiences were at the ends of a
continuum and this perspective moves away from the traditional dichotomy of
formal versus informal learning and was more in-line with Falk’s idea of choice
opportunity, since the faculty to choose what to learn was not exclusive to non-
school environments (cited in Tal and Morag, 2007: 3).
237
All learners involved in the survey found working away from the classroom
‘exciting’, ‘practical’, ‘motivating’, ‘refreshing’ and ‘fun’. Following a class
lesson, pupils became animated and involved once they had the opportunity to
conduct their own research outside the classroom (OFSTED, 2008: pg.10). A
study in the Malta sister island of Gozo reports the pupils’ enthusiasm,
involvement, quest for knowledge, desire to try things, enjoyment and
excitement during a visit to a science center (Buttigieg, 2001: 55).
The next chapter 7 presents the main conclusions from the data analyzed and
the discussion that ensues. The methodological, drawing and visit limitations
are recognized and highlighted. The major contributions to the field of
knowledge are clearly stated and recommendations for museum learning and
further research given.
238
7 Conclusions
239
In this concluding chapter, I review the main limitations of the methodology of
this research, limitations of the data collected and drawings, and limitations of
class management and handling during the visit. Next I discuss the major
conclusions that emerge from the data mainly; drawing as influenced by context
and novelty effect of the museum; predilection by Maltese children for animals,
particularly the cultural importance of birds; dioramas aid the recall of familiar
environments and accommodate ‘new’ knowledge; progressing from imaginary
drawing to observational drawing children show changes in perspective and
relationships between organisms; children interpret the diorama through the
lens of their current mental model; sources of knowledge about animals and
plants; the potential for dioramas as models in science education. Here I state
the main contribution to knowledge that I make through this research project;
the mixed-methods approach and the new theoretical model for interpreting
dioramas and other artefacts.
A shorter period (a week) between class, museum and post visit tasks instead of
three and two weeks respectively would have helped to minimise any
interferences, but for logistic reasons this was not possible. Ideally, the children
were interviewed about their drawings at the museum, but this would have been
too time consuming and neither was it possible to conduct the interviews within
a day or two after the visit. Four pupils who participated in the class drawing
task did not attend the museum visit, thus reducing the sample size further
(originally one disabled male and another female student refused to participate
240
in the research). It is unfortunate that there are still parents who feel that field
trips are a waste of time and not an integral part of the curriculum.
Few problems were encountered during the first task carried out in the
accustomed environment of the classroom, except that some looking over and
copying was unavoidable with pupils working so close to each other. This is not
necessarily a negative practice as children can pick up ideas from each other
(Hopperstad, 2010). We should not assume that children’s drawings are print-
outs of mental images (Jolley, 2010) and that children never just copy (Kress,
1997). Granted that some children did copy from their peers’ work, each
drawing expresses a unique context for the visual forms and structures that are
copied (Hopperstad, 2010: 447; Kress, 1997: 37). There is little evidence in my
results that children actually copied and very few drawings by different pupils
look similar.
Visual methods are appropriate to use with children as they are widely regarded
to be “child-centered”, age-appropriate and non-verbal means of
communication with the potential to allow children to express themselves
(Brooks, 2005; Malchiodi, 1998; Mitchell, 2006). Even though the use of
drawings poses limitations, it is still worth using drawings as a data source.
Reasons are the relative ease of obtaining a rich mass of data and also as an
alternative to verbal expression enabling children through drawing, to show
241
things that they cannot put into words (Lewis & Green in Bowker, 2007: 79).
However, there are limitations in drawings as a data.
In all of the drawing tasks pupils said they had difficulty in drawing or they did
not have enough time to finish or include other items. This is especially true for
the Diorama Task, 53% of pupils had difficulty in drawing their preferred
setting, while 20% of pupils drew features (mainly animals) and afterwards
erased them. Children still believed that there were expectations on the quality
of their drawing and that what they were drawing was not ‘good enough’. It
seemed evident that certain children drew few features because they lacked the
confidence to produce a complete picture or they required more time to finish
their work. An open-ended instruction (such as ‘Now I want you to draw
something’) may encourage some children to draw directed by personal agendas
and interests. However, others may feel insecure and draw what they believe the
teacher would expect and approve (Anning and Ring, 2004).
For the task before the viewing of the dioramas, a few children drew what they
had observed in the bird hall, rather than what I instructed them to draw,
namely a ‘a place with animals and plants in Malta’. In the museum context,
working in a new and different environment to the classroom, the children
enjoyed greater freedom to explore and express themselves and this could
explain the behaviour of these few. Some children were concerned that their
242
drawing wasn’t of the ‘desired’ quality, notwithstanding that I assured them that
every drawing was acceptable. They persisted in asking whether their drawing
was ‘good’. Drawing skill was not an issue, but rather the use of drawing to
visualize their thoughts (Alerby, 2000: 210, Gardner 1980: 262). Students
erased and redrew features of their drawing or even discarded the paper and
started all over again, confirming what was reported by Hopperstand (2010) in
a study carried out with 35 Norwegian 6 year olds. He observed children who
made four versions of an object before they were pleased with the result. A child
may refrain from drawing if it proves to be too daunting a task or the child is not
satisfied with the quality of the drawing. Critical remarks may cause a child to
give up the drawing and start all over again (Gardner 1980: 262; Hopperstad,
2010: 448).
One concern with drawing is that the narrow range of possible images that can
be reflected in children's drawings may not be fully representative of their
understanding of nature. This calls for the need to supplement with Webs and
interviewing (Keliher, 1997: 241).
243
children would be expected to wander off attracted by whatever was of interest
to them. Part of the pupils’ time was allowed for “looking around” perhaps at
the expense of the knowledge they were on the trip to gain (Benz, 1962: 49).
However, the role of the ‘more knowledgeable’ other in scaffolding aids learning
and thus the involvement of museum educators or teachers in assisted learning
would enhance the potential of a museum experience (Jenson, 2011).
The class teacher can organize activities as specific preparation that reduces the
novelty factor and aids meaningful learning during the field trip. ‘Novelty-
reducing preparation’ increases on-task exploratory behaviour and greater
cognitive learning (Kubota & Olstad, 1991; Orion and Hofstein; 1994). The
three factors (a) level and type of knowledge and skills, (b) acquaintance with
the field trip area, and (c) psychological preparation all help to reduce the
“novelty space” to a minimum and facilitate meaningful learning during a field
trip (Orion and Hofstein, 1994: 1116-7). Drawing before the visit not only
probes knowledge, but also helps to improve drawing skill and affords a degree
of psychological preparation.
Class preparation and teacher involvement is crucial in a museum visit and this
was evident from the varying behaviour of the different classes participating in
the research. Evidently, the teacher of one of the classes (class 5.1) had pupils
very well prepared for the visit and was actively involved in the museum
activity.
244
countryside (class & pre-diorama) selected the ‘field’ or the ‘house yard’ that
may elicit memories of things one sees in gardens and the countryside or if
seaside was drawn they selected the sand dune diorama. Not all pupils are able
to make such clear connections as evidenced by drawings showing a conflation
of dioramas. The strong cultural presence of the superordinate ‘bird’ among
Maltese children is quite clear. They also seem to prefer more endemic species
than exotic foreign species, which is does not concur with what was found in
other countries. As far as plants are concerned, seeded, large woody trees such
as apples, oranges and cherries seem to prevail even though in Malta only
orange trees can be seen around. There is a clear preference for animals over
plants. Maltese children seem to confirm the general “plant blindness”
characteristic reported in literature (Wandersee and Schussler, 2001).
First, this is a first doctoral study on habitat dioramas in the field and on their
potential in biological education and as models for visualization and
interpretation of animals and plants. Secondly, methodologically it offers a
novel range of data collection tools in a mixed-method approach and also a new
analytical method using Atlas.ti to generate semi-quantitative data. Thirdly, it
offers a model to theorise how natural history dioramas can be used to obtain an
247
understanding of flora and fauna and how the model could be employed beyond
the specifics of this study.
248
inferences about the drawer’s intended meaning. It is a recognized fact that
children provide more information than they actually draw (Jolley, 2010: 238).
I also asked for a web (mind map), to obtain further evidence on knowledge,
which dose not feature in the drawing, meaning that pupils frequently know
more than they actually draw. A drawing might not show all that a pupil
knows, but it has a narrative of it’s own. The set of three drawings enabled me
to follow the progression from class to museum to diorama and elicit any
changes of biological significance. This method may be applied to other out-of-
class settings, such parks, fields, gardens, zoos and nature reserves. In fact
drawings have already been used in zoo research (Jensen, 2011; Tunnicliffe,
1999).
Drawing does have its shortcomings and is by no means a problem free activity.
I have above underlined how drawing does not uncover all that a child knows
about animals and plants. Drawings are not precise measurements of something
as intangible as the implicit or explicit nature of the internal representation
(Jolley, 2010: 178). It is crucial not to overlook the question of discrepancy
between competence (cognitive) and performance (drawing). In this research I
learnt that time constraints, pupils’ confidence in drawing and the expectations
they believe their teacher or researcher might have, all pose limits on drawing
performance. So, although drawings are a unique and rich data source, it is
wise to supplement this data with other tools such as interviews, questionnaires
and simple written narratives. I learnt that analysing drawings is more arduous
and terribly time consuming than I had expected, particularly if there are quite a
few drawings to look at. I also directly observed and audio recorded the
children as they interacted with the museum settings. This provides addition
behavioural data and conversations that occur between the pupils. The affective
as well as biological comments are made while observing the museum settings.
Video data would have been useful, but the area was too small to allow this and I
did not have permission and ethical approval to video the children.
249
recommend its use for analysing visual data, but being well acquainted with the
package would appreciably reduce the hardship of the analysis.
The strengths of the model lie in the manner it links together the elements
involved in the interpretation of an artefact (mediating tool) to understand the
message it conveys, for example Natural History Dioramas present flora and
fauna in their habitat showing possible ecological relationships. It elucidates
how a learner may understand a topic as mediated by an artefact to construct an
intangible mental model to create a tangible expressed model (a drawing). The
interaction with peers, the cultural baggage possessed and knowledge held may
influence the mental model constructed. Potentially, this may apply to various
topics as presented or modelled by 2D, 3D or virtual mediating tools. This may
be done in different learning situations in science and other areas in formal,
non-formal and informal settings.
250
is normally a selection of what really interests the person from what he observes
and earlier learning.
e) Culture and previous knowledge are both long-term factors, which influence
the way persons learn, acquire new knowledge and build mental models.
However, it is difficult to measure the effect these have on the learner and his
mental model.
7.6 Recommendations
There are some recommendations that I believe are pertinent at this point.
These mainly address the following areas: the museum and services offered, a
protocol for field visits, the Maltese primary science curriculum, teacher
education and preparation and further research avenues.
In the UK, OFSTED (2001) established a set of national standards for out of
school experiences and apart from achieving the National Standards, the
providers are also expected to follow a set of regulations given in the same
document. In Malta there is no such document on standards for field trips and
so schools have no proper guidance or establish protocol to follow. Thus, it is
highly recommended to compile a set of standards and procedures for field trips
that schools in Malta would be expected to follow. In its report Learning
Outside the Classroom, OFSTED (2008) give recommendations on how Central
Education authorities and Local authorities could better support and encourage
schools in enriching the quality of out-of-class learning, and on how schools and
colleges could provide meaningful out-of-class experiences for all their students.
There is no analogue to OFSTED in Malta, but there is a standards in education
authority (DQSE) which may follow suite on OFSTED’s work, particularly since
the Maltese education system is similar to that in Britain.
‘In the best primary visits, staff, parents and other volunteers
supervising the pupils were given clear guidance about the expected
learning and how to promote it, for example by asking key
questions. However, this was not always done well, with the result
that the focus on learning in the minds of adults and pupils was
diluted’ (OFSTED, 2008, pg.15).
Patrick et al., (2011) report that pre-service teachers thought planning was
important, children didn’t learn very much about the exhibits or animals, field
trips were a waste of time and that it was hard to have a successful field trip.
They concluded that when teachers prepared their students properly before a
trip, less time would be spent on management and more would be spent on
learning. Thus, teacher education programs in Malta need to include field trip
252
design and informal educational experiences that could lead to more
educationally focused field trips.
In a study in Malta, Buttigieg (2001) reports that not all teachers felt confident,
nor were they confident in such an environment and in the scientific
investigations carried out.
254
References
255
Adams, M., Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2003). Things Change: Museums,
Learning and Research. In M. Xanthoudaki, L. Tickle, & V. Sekules (Eds.),
Researching Visual Arts Education in Museums and Galleries. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ash, D. (2004). How families use questions at dioramas: ideas for exhibit
design. Curator, 47(1), 84-100.
Ash, D., & Rahm, J. (2012). Introduction: Tools for Reseach in Informal
Settings. In D. Ash, J. Rahm, & L. M. Melber (Eds.), Putting Theory into
Practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Bang, M., Medin, D., & Atran, S. (2007). Cultural Mosaics and Mental Models of
Nature. PNAS, 104(35), 13868-13874.
Barry Lewis, R. (2004). NVivo 2.0 and ATLAS.ti 5.0: A Comparative Review of
Two Popular Qualitative Data-Analysis Programs. Field Methods, 16(4), 439-
469.
256
Bartoszeck, A. B. (2009). Animals in children's Lives-Brazil. Paper presented at
the European Science Education Research Association, Instanbul.
Bitgood, S., Sorrell, B., & Thompson, D. (1994). The impact of informal
education on visitors to museums. In V. Crane, H. Nicholson, M. Chen, & S.
Bitgood (Eds.), Informal Science Learning: what the research says about
television, science museums and community-based projects. Dedham MA:
Research Communications Ltd.
Borg, M. G., & Falzon, J. M. (1990). Coping action used by Maltese Primary
School Teachers. Educational Research, 32(1), 50-58.
257
Bowker, R. (2004). Children’s perceptions of plants following their visit to the
Eden Project. Research in Science & Technological Education, 22(2), 227-243.
Bowker, R., & Jasper, A. (2007). ‘Don’t forget your leech socks’! Children’s
learning during an Eden Education Officer’s workshop. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 25(1), 135-150.
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2004). The nature of learning science outside the
classroom. In M. Braund & M. Reiss (Eds.), Learning Science Outside the
Classroom (pp. 1-12). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum:
the contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science
Education, 28(12), 1373-1388.
258
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press.
Burton, J. (1980). Developing Minds: the first visual symbols. School Arts,
80(2), 60-65.
Cerini, B., Murray, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2003). Review of the Science Curriculum:
Major Findings. London: Plant Science, Science Museum & IOE.
259
Coates, E., & Coates, A. (2006). Young children talking and drawing.
International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 221-241.
Collins, G. (2003, 3rd February). Rescuing the Diorama from the fate of the
Dodo; in new appreciation of old techniques, museum remakes the sea on dry
land. New York Times.
Davidson, S. K., Passmore, C., & Anderson, D. (2009). Learning on Zoo Field
Trips: The Interaction of the Agendas and Practices of Students, Teachers, and
Zoo Educators. Science Education, 94, 122-141.
Davis, J., & Gardner, H. (1992). The Cognitive revolution: consequences for the
understanding and education of the child as artist. In B. Reiner & R. A. Smith
260
(Eds.), The Arts, Education and Aesthetic Knowing: ninety-first Yearbook of
the National Society for the study of Education (Vol. Part II, pp. 92-123).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dockett, S., Main, S., & Kelly, L. (2011). Consulting Young Children:
Experiences from a Museum. Visitor Studies, 14(1), 13-33.
Driver, R. (1983). The Pupil as Scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2005). From Living to Virtual: Learning from
Museum Object. Curator, 48(3), 317-338.
Edwards, B. (1979). Drawing on the right side of the brain. Los Angeles: J.P.
Tarcher INC.
261
Falk, J. H. (2008). Advancing the NSES vision through informal education. In
R. E. Yager & J. H. Falk (Eds.), Exemplary science in informal education
settings: standards-based success stories. Virginia: NSTA Press.
Falk, J. H., & Balling, J. D. (1980). The school field trip: Where you go makes a
difference. Science & Children, 17(6), 6-8.
Falk, J. H., Martin, W. W., & Balling, J. D. (1978). The Novel Field-Trip
Phenomenon: Adjustment To Novel Settings Interferes with Task Learning.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 15(2), 127-134.
Falk, J. H., Storksdieck, M., & Dierking, L. (2007). Investigating public science
interest and understanding: evidence for the importance of free-choice learning.
Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 455-469.
Friese, S. (2012). ATLAS.ti 7: User Guide and Reference (pp. 433). Berlin:
ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.
Gallup. (2008). Flash Eurobarometer 239: Young people and science (pp. 206):
European Commission.
Garibay, C., & Gyllenhaal, E. (2015). Habitat Diorama and Sense of place:
Factors Linked to Visitors' Feelings About the Natural Places Portrayed in
262
Dioramas. In S. D. Tunnicliffe & A. Scheersoi (Eds.), Natural History
Dioramas: History, Construction and Educational Role (pp. 209-226).
London: Springer.
Gatt, S., Tunnicliffe, S. D., Borg, K., & Lautier, K. (2007). Young Maltese
children's ideas about plants. Journal of Biological Education, 41(3), 117-121.
Golomb, C. (2004). The Child's Creation of a Pictorial World (2nd ed.). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, LEA.
Gomes, M. (2013). It’s Not Just Child’s Play: Nature’s Powerful Effect on
Children’s Well-Being. Tikkun Magazine, 28, 7-12.
263
Green, M. (1986). Stephen Jay Gould; driven by a hunger to learn and to write
what he knows, an outspoken scientist fight back from life-threatening illness.
People, 25, 109-114.
Gunstone, R., & White, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. London: The Falmer
Press.
Haney, W., Russel, M., & Bebell, D. (2004). Drawing on Education: Using
Drawings to Document Schooling and Support Change. Harvard Educational
Review, 74(3), 241-271.
Holliday, E. L., Harrison, L. J., & McLeod, S. (2009). Listening to children with
communication impairment talking through their drawings. Journal of Early
Childhood Research, 7(3), 244-263.
264
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1999). Learning from learning theory in museums. In E.
Hooper-Greenhill (Ed.), The Educational Role of the Museum (2nd ed., pp. 137-
145). London & New York: Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E., Dodd, J., Gibson, L., Phillips, M., Jones, C., & Sullivan, E.
(2006). What did you learn at the museum today? Second Study. London: MLA
Council.
Hordyk, R. S., Dulude, M., & Shem, M. (2014). When nature nurtures children:
nature as a containing and holding space. Children's Geographies.
Hurwitz, A., & Day, M. (1991). Children and their art: Methods for the
elementary school (5th ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Huxham, M., Welsh, A., Berry, A., & Templeton, S. (2006). Factors influencing
primary school children's knowledge of wildlife. Journal of Biological
Education, 41(1), 9-12.
Ilyenkov, E. V. (1997). The question of the identity of thought and being in pre-
marxist philosophy. Russian Studies in Philosophy, 36(1), 5-33.
265
Johnson, S. (2004). Learning science in a botamic garden. In M. Braund & M.
Reiss (Eds.), Learning Science Outside the Classroom (pp. 75-93). London:
Routledge Falmer.
Kellogg, R. (1967). The psychology of children's art. New York: CRM, Inc.
266
Kress, G. (1997). Before Writing. Rethinking the Paths to Literacy. London:
Routledge.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images. The Grammer of Visual
Design. London: Routledge.
Kupetz, N. B., & Twiest, M. M. (2000). Nature, Literature, and young Children:
A Natural Combination. Young Children, 55(1), 59-63.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and Sociocultural Views of Learning in
Science Education. Science & Education, 12, 91-113.
Louv, R. (2008). Last Child in the Woods. New York: Algonquin Books.
267
Lowenfeld, V. (1947). Creative and mental growth. New York: MacMillan.
Lowenfeld, V. (1963). Your Child and His Art. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
Lowenfeld, V., & W.L., B. (1987). Creative and mental growth (8th ed.). New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Lutts, R. L. (2001). The Nature Fakers: Wildlife, Science & Sentiment. New
York: University of Virginia Press.
Martin, M., Mullis, I., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. (2011). TIMSS 2011 International
Results in Science. Amsterdam: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
Medin, D., & Atran, S. (2008). The Native Mind and the Cultural Construction
of Nature. London: The MIT Press.
268
Meinig, D. W. (1979). The Beholding Eye. In D. Meining (Ed.), The
Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes (pp. 33-48). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Morrow, V., & Richards, M. (1996). The ethics of social research with children:
an overview. Children and Society, 10(2), 90-105.
Mullis, I., Martin, M., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2011). TIMSS 2011 International
Results in Mathematics. Amsterdam: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study
Center.
269
Nyhart, K. L. (2004). Science, Art, and Authenticity in Natural History Displays.
In S. De Chadarevian & N. Hopwood (Eds.), Models: The Third Dimension of
Science. New York: Stanford University Press.
OFSTED. (2008). Learning outside the classroom: How far should you go?
London: OFSTED.
Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that Influence Learning during a
Scientific Field Trip in a Natural Environment. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 31(10), 1097-1119.
Palmer, J. A., Suggate, J., Bajd, B., Hart, P., Ho, R. K. P., Ofwono-Orecho, J. K.
W., Peries, M., Robottom, I., Tsaliki, E., Van Staden, C. (1998). An Overview of
Significant Influences and Formative Experiences on the Development of
Adults. Environmental Education Research, 4(4), 445-464.
Palmer, J. A., Suggate, J., Bajd, B., & Tsaliki, E. (1998). Significant Influences
on the Development of Adults' Environmental Awareness in the UK, Slovenia
and Greece. Environmental Education Research, 4(4), 429-444.
Palmer, J. A., Suggate, J., Hart, P., & Robottom, I. (1999). Significant Life
Experiences and Formative Influences on the Development of Adults.
Environmental Education Research, 5(2), 181 — 200.
270
Parsons, C., & Breise, A. (2000). Orientation for Self-Guided School Groups on
Field Trips. Visitor Studies Today., 3(2).
Patrick, P., Byrne, J., Tunnicliffe, S. D., Asunta, T., Carvalho, G., Nuutinen, S.
H., . . . Tracana, R. B. (2013). Students (ages 6, 10, and 15 years) in six countries
knowledge of animals. NorDiNa, 9(1), 18-32.
Patrick, P., Mathews, C., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2011). Using a Field Trip
Inventory to Determine If Listening to Elementary School Students'
Conversations, While on a Zoo Field Trip, Enhances Preservice Teachers'
Abilities to Plan Zoo Field Trips. International Journal of Science Education,
25(1), 1-25.
Patrick, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2011). What Plants and Animals Do Early
Childhood and Primary Students’ Name? Where Do They See Them? Journal of
Sceince Education and Technology, 20(5), 630-642.
Peart, B., & Kool, R. (1988). Analysis of a natural history exhibit: are dioramas
the answer? The International Journal of Museum Management and
Curatorship, 7, 117-128.
Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child’s conception of space (F. J. Langdon
& J. L. Lunzer, Trans.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
271
Pipueras, J., Hamsa, M. K., & Edvall, S. (2008). The practical epistemologies in
the museum: A study of students' learning in encounters with dioramas.
Journal of Museum Education, 33(2), 153-164.
Price, S., & Hein, G. E. (1991). More than a field trip: science programmes for
elementary school groups at museums. International Journal of Science
Education., 13(5), 505-519.
Rapp, D. N., & Kurby, C. A. (2008). The 'Ins' and 'Outs' of Learning: Internal
Representations and External Visualizations. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.),
Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (Vol. 3). London:
Springer.
Reiss, M. J., Boulter, C., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2007). Seeing the natural world: a
tension between pupils’ diverse conceptions as revealed by their visual
representations and monolithic science lessons. Visual Communication, 6(1),
99-114.
Reiss, M. J., Tunnicliffe, S. D., Andersen, A., Bartoszeck, A., Carvalho, G. S.,
Chen, S., Jarman, R., Jonsson, S., Manokore, V., Marchenko, N., Mulemwa, J.,
Novikova, T., Otuka, J., Teppa, S., Van Rooy, W. (2002). An International Study
272
of Young Peoples' Drawings of What Is Inside Themselves. Journal of Biological
Education, 36(2), 58-64.
Rowe, S., & Humphries, S. (2004). The Outdoor Classroom. In M. Braund & M.
Reiss (Eds.), Learning Science Outside the Classroom (pp. 19-34). London:
Routledge Falmer.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of
Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25,
54-67.
Striker, S. (2001). Young at Art. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Sultana, J., & Falzon, V. (2002). Wildlife of the Maltese Islands. Malta: BDL.
274
Symington, D. (1981). Children’s Drawings of Natural Phenomena. Research in
Science Education, 11, 44-51.
Tal, R., Bamberger, Y., & Morag, O. (2005). Guided School Visits to Natural
History Museums in Israel: Teachers’ Roles. Science Education, 89(6), 920-935.
Tal, T., & Morag, O. (2007). School Visits to Natural History Museums:
Teaching or Enriching? Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 44(5), 747-
769.
Tinworth, K. (2015). Relics of the Past + People of the Past = Innovation for the
Future: Denver Museum of Nature & Science's Enactor Programm. In S. D.
Tunnicliffe & A. Scheersoi (Eds.), Natural History Dioramas: History,
Construction and Educational Role (pp. 227-242). London: Springer.
Tomkins, S., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2006). Bring back the Nature Table!
Environmental Education, 82, 8-11.
275
Trumbull, A. (2006). Peopling the Powwow: Community Involvement in a
Cultural Diorama. Paper presented at the Connections, Communities and
Collections, Miami Beach.
276
Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2009). Agricultural Dioramas and Natural History: hidden
messages? In S. D. Tunnicliffe & A. Scheersoi (Eds.), The important role of
Natural History dioramas in biological learning (Vol. 29, pp. 36-39): ICOM
Natural History Committee Newsletter.
Tunnicliffe, S. D., Boulter, C. J., & Reiss, M. J. (2007). Pigeon - friend or foe?
Children's understanding of everyday animal. Paper presented at the BERA
Annual Conference, London.
Tunnicliffe, S. D., Gatt, S., Agius, C., & Pizzuto, S. A. (2008). Animals in the lives
of young Maltese Children. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &
Technology Education, 4(3), 215-221.
Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Osborne, J. (1995). What do zoos and museums have to
offer for learning about animals? Journal of Education in Museums, 16, 16-19.
Tunnicliffe, S. D., Osborne, J., & Lucas, A. M. (1997). School visits to zoos and
museums: a missed educational opportunity? International Journal of Science
Education, 19(9), 1039-1056.
Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Reiss, M. (2006). Drawing breath: the use of drawings
and interviews in a six-year longitudinal study of 5-11 year-olds’
understandings of what is inside themselves. Paper presented at the ERIDOB:
London.
277
Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Reiss, M. J. (1999). Building a Model of the Environment:
How Do Children See Animals? Journal of Biological Education, 33(3), 142-
148.
Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Scheersoi, A. (2010). Dusty relics or essential tools for
communicating biology? In A. Filippoupoliti (Ed.), Science Exhibitions:
Communication and Evaluation. Edinburgh: MuseumsETC.
Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2006). Learning Junior Secondary Science
through Multi-Modal Representations. Electronic Journal of Science
Education., 11(1).
Wilson, B., & WIlson, M. (1977). An Iconoclastic View of the Imagery Sources in
the Drawings of Young People. Art Education, 30(1), 4-11.
278
Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1979). Figure Structure, Figure Action and Family in
Drawings by American and Egyptian Children. Studies in Art Education, 21(1),
36-43.
279
Appendix
280
Institute of Education, University of London
Ethics Approval for Doctoral Student Research Projects: Data Sheet
None
Research participants
Does the research involve human participants?
Yes, as a primary source of data (e.g. through interviews)
Yes, as a secondary source of data (e.g. using existing data sets)
No Please
explain____ ______________________________________
If the research involves human participants, who are they? (tick all that apply)
Early years/pre-school Adults please describe them below
School-aged children 8 year olds in the 4th grade of primary school
Young people aged 17-18 in Malta.
Unknown
281
Research methods to be used (tick all that apply – this information will be
recorded on a database of the types of work being presented to Ethics
Committees)
Interviews Systematic review
Focus groups Randomised controlled trial
Questionnaire Literature review
Action research Use of personal records
Observation
Other Drawings
282
Institute of Education, University of London
Ethics Approval for Doctoral Student Research Projects:
Planned Research and Ethical considerations.
The aim of the study is to gain insight into children’s understandings of animals
and plants, habitats and human constructed artefacts through observations of new
dioramas of Maltese habitats at the Natural History Museum.
Research Design
The theoretical framework draws on Constructivism, informal learning and out-
of-school learning. Two year 4 classes from two different schools will be involved.
The children are mixed ability 7-8 year olds from middle class families. I will
conduct all data collection acting as an outsider researcher. I will visit the schools
prior to planned activities to talk to the children and familiarise myself with them
and them with me. The day before the museum visit, children will be asked to
draw what they think they will be seeing. A protocol will be used to guide the
process. At the museum, children will be split into small groups of 2 or 3 and they
will see the dioramas in these groups. They will be allowed to talk, with minimal
cueing from my part to get them started and extract information. All converstions
will be recorded using an MP4 device and will be used to cross-reference with the
drawings and find out what and how much they notice in the dioramas. The day
following the visit, the children will be asked to draw what they had seen at the
museum visit. The pre- and post-visit drawings will be coded, analysed and
compared to find differences that might occur. Analysis will be based on
categories that will be evident in the drawings with the aim of producing a
quantitative result using a systemic system. A qualitative analysis will also be
included.
283
2. Specific ethical issues
(Outline the main ethical issues which may arise in the course of this research,
and how they will be addressed. It’s expected that this will require approx. 200–
300 words, though you may write more if you feel it is necessary. You will find
information in the notes about answering this question).
The participants of this study are children 7 to 8 years old. They research will be
done by me as the researcher in the presence of the class teacher and teaching
assistants.
The study is expected to provide valuable information that will help schools and
authorities design more effective science education program. The children are the
main subjects to benefit from this, while teachers will be able to provide more
interesting and enriching science experiences to their classes.
All data will be kept by me and will only be shown to the supervisors. Any names
will be changed in case of dissemination of parts of data. Recording will only be
used to obtain conversational data during the visit. These will be heard and
transcribed by me and any particular piece of conversation that might be used in a
report will be anonymised by changing the names. Participants will be promised
full anonymity.
The findings will be used for the MOE2 assignment, will be seen by the supervisors
and will be forwarded to the school head teachers.
3. Attachments
Please attach the following items to this form:
The proposal or project outline for the project
Approval letter from external Research Ethics Committee, if applicable
Where available, information sheets and other materials to be used to inform
potential participants about the research.
284
4. Declaration
I confirm that to the best of my knowledge this is a full description of the ethics issues that may
arise in the course of this project
Signed Date
School Use
Date considered:
Referred on to FREC
FREC use
Date considered:………………….
FREC reference:…………
Referred to RGEC
285
Institute of Education, University of London
Ethics Approval for Doctoral Student Research Projects: Data Sheet
None
Research participants
Does the research involve human participants?
Yes, as a primary source of data (e.g. through interviews)
Yes, as a secondary source of data (e.g. using existing data sets)
No Please
explain____ ______________________________________
If the research involves human participants, who are they? (tick all that apply)
Early years/pre-school Adults please describe them below
School-aged children 9 year old in 5th grade of primary education in
Young people aged 17-18 Malta
Unknown
286
Research methods to be used (tick all that apply – this information will be
recorded on a database of the types of work being presented to Ethics
Committees)
Interviews Systematic review
Focus groups Randomised controlled trial
Questionnaire Literature review
Action research Use of personal records
Observation
Other Drawings and Mind Maps (as in Personal Meaning Mapping)
287
Institute of Education, University of London
Ethics Approval for Doctoral Student Research Projects:
Planned Research and Ethical considerations.
The rationale of the study is to gain insights into what children notice and
remember about animals and plants from direct observation of in out of school
settings and to use the findings to help schools, museums and science centres
design effective educational program in Biological Science.
The aim of the research is to investigate what captures the attention of children
while viewing habitat dioramas at the Natural History Museum in Malta. How
much do they know about local wildlife before they visit the museum? Which
features of the dioramas do they remember best? How much will they remember
after four weeks?
Research Design
288
2. Specific ethical issues
(Outline the main ethical issues which may arise in the course of this research,
and how they will be addressed. It’s expected that this will require approx. 200–
300 words, though you may write more if you feel it is necessary. You will find
information in the notes about answering this question)
The participants of this study are children 9 to 10 years old. The research will be
carried out by myself as the researcher in the presence of the class teacher and
teaching assistants.
The study is expected to provide valuable information that will help schools and
authorities design more effective out-of-school science education field trips. The
children are the main subjects to benefit from this, while teachers will be able to
provide more interesting and enriching science experiences to their classes.
All data will be kept by me and will only be shown to the supervisors. Any names
will be changed in case of dissemination of parts of data. Recording will only be
used to obtain conversational data during the visit. These will be heard and
transcribed by me and any particular piece of conversation that might be used in a
report will be anonymised by changing the names. All audio recorded data will be
destroyed when the research is finished. Participants will be promised full
anonymity.
The findings will be seen by the supervisors, included in the PhD thesis and a
report will be forwarded to the school administration and LEA.
289
3. Attachments
4. Declaration
I confirm that to the best of my knowledge this is a full description of the ethics issues that may
arise in the course of this project
Signed Date
School Use
Date considered:
Referred on to FREC
FREC use
Date considered:………………….
FREC reference:…………
Referred to RGEC
Animals: Animals:
Plants: Plants:
Physical: Physical:
296
Interview with NHM curator: John J Borg
Monday 17th May, 2010.
2. Considering that they aren’t so fashionable in Europe, why was the need
3. Who was responsible for their construction and how were decisions taken?
4. Why did you choose these particular settings and why choose local
settings?
5. Did you consult or follow any techniques or models to build these settings?
6. Why didn’t you include any signage plaques or any other effects such as
sound?
d. Don't you think that, had you pursued your idea, the intended message
10. Did you plan for any educational activities at the dioramas?
11. Have you assessed the effectiveness of the settings yet? Was any research
297
Development progression from Class, Pre-diorama to Diorama
Pupil Name Development through drawings
J Balzan Only one butterfly in class drawing. No real relationship between humans,
birds and physical objects in pre-diorama drawing, no evident story told.
The bird on the tree is decontextualized. The diorama drawing shows the
sand dune, with clear relationship between birds, another feed and a third
in flight. The habitat is clearly shown here and the diorama has helped the
student to place the organisms with greater accuracy. Pupil seems to have
acquired the narrative in the setting. Birds and plants drawn in iconic
mode, while humans disappear in the diorama.
P Borg From decontextualized animals in the class drawing to ecological
interactions in other drawings, pre-diorama and diorama drawings very
colourful, woods drawn first with bird and butterfly well placed in the
habitat with a human in the foreground. Diorama is the equally
represented sand dune, with only two birds, one flying i.e. in action and
sun inserted. Birds, trees and human drawn in iconic mode, but to scale in
diorama drawing as opposed to previous. Pupil acquired the narrative in
the setting.
J Bouzguenda Only decontextualized animals in class drawing, only one bird drawn out of
scale but in context in the pre-diorama drawing, ecological interactions in
diorama drawings, with bird on tree and rabbit on ground both drawn to
scale. Pupil partially acquired the narrative in the setting. Animals, trees
in iconic mode.
N Camilleri In class drawing only hamster and tree, in pre-diorama more organisms
and human in context. The diorama drawing shows the sand dune, with no
evident ecological interaction between birds. Animals shown in flight in
both. The habitat is clearly shown here and the diorama has helped the
student to place the organisms with greater accuracy. Pupil seems to have
acquired the narrative in the setting. Birds and plants drawn in iconic
mode, while humans disappear and sun is inserted in the diorama.
R Camilleri Only one tree in class drawing, other two drawings are very poor, with no
context, diorama just shows one bird, but with very little elaboration.
N Caruana Only decontextualized animals in class drawing, pre-diorama drawing is
basic, with some context while in diorama items in context and with some
perspective too. Accuracy of habitat representation and in placement of
organisms in habitat. Animals in iconic mode, plants more realistic in
diorama drawings.
K D’Anastas Class drawing with only one bird and pre-drawing shows only two
elaborately drawn parrots, in both cases decontextualized. Diorama is a
conflation of field and bastion with the same iconically drawn parrot
inserted in the setting. Here the parrot is now contextualised with a habitat
now clearly show.
298
D Diedo The class drawing shows some context, pre-drawing not showing any real
narrative, with an oversized very well drawn bird in the center not
connected with the rest. There is a hunter shooting at a bird on the iconic
drawn tree. The diorama shows a habitat with few animals and no plants,
but changes from charismatic pheasant to non-charismatic shrew, beetle
and small bird and hunter now absent.
G Fenech Drawings show inconic decontextualized animals and plants, with just a
hint of context, but no real semblance to the setting.
Ch Galea Class drawing shows iconic snail and trees with in context, but just one bird
in pre-drawing. The diorama drawing shows the sand dune, with no
evident ecological interaction between birds. Animals shown in flight in
both. The habitat is clearly shown here and the diorama has helped the
student to place the organisms with greater accuracy. Some perspective
shown too.
T Incorvaia Only decontextualized animals seen in class drawing. In pre-diorama
drawing shows hunter shooting at bird, no habitat shown but pupil
included a ‘no hunting’ sign evidencing animal welfare and environmental
concern. Diorama drawing roughly shows the house yard, with animals
oversized and no perspective. There is a positive aspect in being able to
construct a habitat, but welfare aspect is lost and no proportion in size
seen.
A Muscat Class and pre-diorama drawings only show decontextualized animals and
plants, with a very rough and basic diorama drawing.
Ch Muscat Only decontextualized animals seen in class drawing and drawn in colour.
Just a bird in pre-diorama and a duck in post, both decontextualized.
MJ Scerri Just a single parrot in class, a bird in pre-diorama and a duck in diorama
drawing all decontextualized.
H Schembri Only decontextualized animals seen in class drawing. No particular
narrative noted in pre-diorama drawing with organisms in context. The
diorama drawing shows the house yard, with more animals and
perspective. The habitat is clearly shown here and the diorama has helped
the student to place the organisms with greater accuracy. Pupil seems to
have acquired the narrative in the setting. Birds drawn in iconic mode,
while plants are much more realistic.
MC Vella In class and pre-drawing only decontextualized birds shown. Diorama
drawing shows the field with most of the animals present in the setting
drawn in proportion and perspective shown. Setting has helped the
student to place the organisms with greater accuracy in the habitat. Pupil
seems to have acquired the narrative in the setting. Animals in iconic
mode.
J Zahra Only one oversized snail in class drawing, a hint of a garden in pre-diorama
while diorama only shows a boat.
299
E Zerafa Only two skeletons in class drawing and a bird/egg in the pre-diorama
drawing with no evident context. In diorama drawing, field habitat is clear
with more animals and in context, perspective shown. Animals in iconic
mode.
MJ Agius Class drawing was is a colourful wood with bird in context, but next two
only showing decontextualized birds drawn quite accurately.
L Borg Class and pre-diorama drawings are very similar, first in colour and shows
the charismatic Lion, second not in colour. Diorama drawing shows V-
shaped birds and iconic butterflies, quite a few iconic flowers and trees,
with no perspective shown.
S Borg Class drawing shows a landscape with just one tree and the iconic house,
hills and sun. Pre-diorama drawing shows a habitat with birds and
butterflies in context all drawn in iconic mode. Habitat seen in diorama
drawing shows iconic butterflies and snails, and flowers and trees all drawn
in iconic mode. No perspective shown.
C Camilleri First drawing shows a colourful composition with various birds, ants, dog
and humans including a hunter. Breeding also shown with birds nesting.
In second drawing decontextualized birds, horse and tree shown, while in
third an oversized flying bird, beetle, shrew, rooster and 3 trees all in iconic
mode. Overall decremental in knowledge.
M Cortis First drawing shows decontextualized animals and plants, with more
context in second and also the third although both very basic and with no
colour. Animals and plants all in iconic mode in three drawings.
S Galea First drawing shows a wide variety of animals and some plants too, but less
variety in second, with only one flower. Third drawing shows only two
birds, which are now in context but overall there was a reduction in
biodiversity. All organisms drawn in iconic mode.
A M Gauci Only decontextualized organisms shown, but with reduced numbers from
first to third drawing.
M Gauci The first drawing shows a conflation of a field and valley, totally different in
the second and field in third similar to first drawing. Only difference more
plants and flowers in third drawing compared to other two but no animals.
C Lucasenco First drawing shows a garden, colourful iconic trees, birds and butterflies
in context; few birds, trees and flowers in second but in third drawing there
is a clear habitat with animals placed with greater accuracy and in
perspective.
F Marchand Three animals and hunter in first drawing to just one in second and three
in the third but less elaborated and less accurate.
J Micallef Animals and plants decontextualized in first drawing, same thing noted in
second but with reduced diversity, while in third animals are in context and
placed with greater accuracy and with increased accuracy of habitat
representation. Perspective not shown.
300
M Mifsud Various contextualized vertebrates and invertebrates, with feeding and
reproduction shown in first and in colour. This changed to just two
decontextualized birds in the second and just the rooster in third.
Max Mifsud Colourful trees, flowers, birds and butterflies in first drawing in context. In
second drawing only 3 isolated birds, while third shows the sand dune with
low elaboration.
P Mohamed Various contextualized vertebrates and invertebrates, with breeding and
people fishing in first. This changed to fewer animals in the second and
just one bird in third.
M Muscat Various contextualized vertebrates and invertebrates, with breeding and
person fishing in first. This changed to only three animals in the second,
and one bird and 2 rabbits in third. First drawing of this pupil is very
similar to the previous, indicating that they copied.
M Powell Only one bird in context in first and second, while there are two birds and
rabbit in the third. First drawing bird accurately drawn, others in iconic
mode.
E Scerri Highly elaborate class drawing showing flying birds, breeding bird, ducks
and fish, with a strong sense of perspective and colour. This transformed
to decontextualized birds drawn in greater detail in the pre-diorama and
just three birds in diorama with no perspective.
C Schembri Class and pre-diorama just show the pupil and her brother flanked by two
threes which transformed into a picture showing decontextualized animals,
flowers and the sand dune boat. The diorama helped her to focus on
drawing animals albeit not in context.
B Smith Class drawing shows an elaborate picture of a beach with a very accurately
drawn palm, a bird and a duck and a beach umbrella, but conflated with
domestic animals. This transformed into a single decontextualized very
accurately drawn crow and eventually into a habitat (house yard), showing
that the pupil moved from the imaginative class drawing to the actual
typical house yard habitat.
JP Zahra Class drawing is an imaginative composition showing a conflation of ideas
with no clear context and including human stick figures, birds (V-shaped)
and one iconic fish. Pre-diorama shows just one iconically drawn crow and
the diorama drawing shows a more organised field picture showing mainly
flowers in rows. Diorama helped this student to draw a more coherent
picture focused on one habitat.
L Bartolo Class and pre-diorama are two very similar imaginative drawings, very
colourful with some degree of perspective, an oversized butterfly in the
center, but presented in context. There are fewer animals and flowers in
the pre-diorama drawing, while diorama drawing is in perspective, with
butterflies and rooster in proportion to plants. In this case too, pupil
moved from an imaginative mode to a realistic mode, but with reduced
301
variety and richness in organisms.
A Borda The class drawing is colourful, imaginative with perspective and showing
breeding relationship, with a human in the center. Transforms to an
isolated bird in the pre-diorama and eventually into a partially represented
‘house yard’ with no perspective and oversized butterfly and rooster.
M Borg Class and pre-diorama show iconic bees, butterflies, trees and flowers in
context and in colour with a rare anthropomorphic sun. This transforms
into a colourless partial field representation with just three animals, drawn
inaccurately with an anthropomorphic rabbit. Generally there is no
significant change and this is one of few pupils that show
anthropomorphism in their drawings.
E Briffa Class shows some birds in context, but one caged and pre-diorama shows
more animals in context and better scale, while diorama shows better
scaling, context and perspective. All organisms iconic.
N Bugeja Class and pre-diorama drawings show an isolated rabbit and a bird
accurately done, but both decontextualized. The diorama drawing is a
partially represented sand dune showing that the pupils tried to represent a
habitat with animals in context, with boat dominating the picture.
P Buhagiar Class drawing shows snakes somewhat isolated from the rest of features,
with iconic plants but drawn differently from the other children perhaps
because he is of Asian origin. Snakes and the sun are anthropomorphic.
Pre-diorama shows more context and narrative, but animals are oversized,
non-iconic and no colour shown. Diorama shows part of the ‘house yard’
with birds in context.
D Chetcuti Class and pre-diorama show quite similarly represented animals and
plants, with an unusual 2nd drawing showing higher diversity, iconically
represented with anthropomorphic animals and sun. Diorama drawing
loses colour, elaboration and perspective, with fewer animals, but
anthropomorphism persists.
F Chircop Highly elaborate and colourful class drawing showing a girl, similar pre-
diorama drawing, but with fewer animals, human dropped and an
anthropomorphic sun included. This transforms into diorama drawing
with no perspective, with just the gecko and grass included.
K Farrugia Class drawing colourful only a dog in a not so clear context, two animals in
the pre-diorama in clearer context transformed into a partial ‘house yard’
with no colour and only few plants shown. Clear decrement occurred
toward 3rd drawing.
K Gatt Class drawing in context with two humans shown, increment in diversity in
pre-diorama yet again humans disappear and further increment in diorama
which has a conflation of different diorama settings. One of the rare
cases with consistent knowledge enhancement through out the three
drawings.
302
K Gauci Class and pre-diorama drawings equally elaborate and colourful with
different focus but similar iconic animals and trees. Vertebrates (fish)
centrally placed in the 1st compared to invertebrates (butterfly and bees)
and an anthropomorphic sun in the 2nd drawing. Diorama is a very partial
‘field’ with no colour and just a bird and an anthropomorphic rabbit.
G Giordmaina Almost identical class and pre-diorama drawings. A very basic ‘sand dune’
with just 2 birds, reed and boat.
M Grech Similar class and pre-diorama drawings, with slight decrement in diorama
drawing.
A Micallef Colourful and highly elaborate class drawing, showing a forest with
charismatic animals such the eagle, cobra, cheetah, similar pre-diorama
drawing but reduced number of trees and shift to non-charismatic animals
e.g. moth. Transformed into ‘bastion’ habitat, showing the non-charismatic
local fauna, accurately drawn palm and with greater perspective. Beans
can was included in this drawing.
J Muscat Class drawing with no real narrative five ducks isolated from two trees
shown a saprophytic relationship with mushrooms. Context appears in
pre-diorama drawing with more accurate charismatic birds conflated in a
local habitat (Dingli Cliffs) showing the rock strata of the Maltese Islands.
This transformed to ‘sand dune’ with many birds (now iconic) showing
feeding relationships but accuracy lost and oversized. One of few pupils
that coloured the three drawings.
L Portelli Class drawing shows a deep sea habitat elaborately drawn, reduced to just
two decontextualized birds in pre-diorama and a diorama drawing with
reduced elaboration and some perspective.
C Sant Class and pre-diorama show colourful and iconic habitats (mountains) with
increased diversity and ecological relationships in the 2nd drawing and
finally an also coloured bastion, well elaborated but now showing a local
habitat from two foreign habitats (waterfall and mountains).
M Scerri Class drawing with colourful iconic animals and plants, to pre-diorama
drawing with just a pelican and swordfish (charismatic) and eventually a
well-elaborated bastion with little perspective and colourless.
M Tonna Class and pre-diorama drawings with unclear context and few animals
transformed to well-elaborated sand dune with all items shown but
animals in iconic mode.
303
304
CLASS%5.1 Drawing%1 Drawing%2 Drawing%3 Relation%to%Diorama Graphical%Features Development%Change
Less Habitat & Variety
Student%Name Animal Plant Scale Animal Plant Scale Animal Favourite% Plant Scale External In%position Variants Omitted Iconic%Mode Colour Accuracy More%Variety%&%Habitat%Representation% Better%Organism Representation
Sand dune: bird
Field: Bird on three, flying, bird on boat, 2 Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
Sandarac. bird flying and owl birds on sand C, bird greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Balzan%James Butterfly (Gharghar) Butterfly.OFS on.tree%C. None Bird.IS,.Antrop on.stone. Field:.diff Reed Bird/boat.OFS None All.Birds Bird/stone.in.opp.dir. .bird/reed Birds.similar:D2,D3 None L in.habitat..Narrative.seen.
flying bird opp dir,
2 apple reed ifo boat not bird/sand,. Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
2 Birds, cat, dog, All OFS, Woods: Bird on tree trees, other Sand dune: bird Yes, also behind, fish bone on bird/stone,. greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Borg%Paolo snail,.ostrich. 2.trees Antrop C,.butterfly,.himself. tree Bird.OFS flying,.bird.on.boat. field Reed Birds.IS Sun All.Birds R.not.on.L bird/reed. Bird.similar:.D2,D3 D2,D3 L in.habitat..Narrative.seen.
Butterfly, duck, 9 birds, Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
shark, snail, jelly All OFS, Garden: One bird C,% Field: Bird/tree, Others too chameleon,. greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Bouzguenda%Josef fish None Antrop nesting. Tree Bird.OFS Rabbit.C difficult Tree All.IS Clouds All None skink Bird.similar:.D2,D3 D2,D3 L in.habitat..Partial.narrative.seen.
flying bird opp dir,
Garden: 2 butterflies Bird OFS, Sand Dune: Bird reed ifo boat not Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
flying, bird flying,. Tree, 2 Butterflies. flying C, bird/boat, behind, bird/boat greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Camilleri%Natalie Hamster Tree All.OFS girl.C flowers OFS,.Antrop bird/sand Yes Reed All.IS Sun All front.looking 3.birds Birds.similar:D2,D3 D2 L in.habitat..Narrative.seen.
Owl, Bat,
Weasel, Rat, From no animals
Camilleri%Rebekah None Tree N/A Garden:.none Tree Isolated Bastion:.bird,.nest Yard Tree Birds.IS Sun,.nest All None bird,.moth. Tree.similar None L to.bird/nest
2 Butterfly, eagle, Field:birds flying,. Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
owl,fish, dolphin, All OFS, bird on tree, snail, Yard: 6 birds, 2 creepers, greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Caruana%Nell crab,.jellyfish. plant Antrop worm 2.trees Bird.IS butterflies,.gecko Yes flowers Birds.IS none All None Bird/tree Bird.similar:.D2,D3 None H:D3 in.habitat..Narrative.seen.
Bastion&S 9 birds, Birds better
Field: parrot C,. and dune Parrot,. chameleon,. drawn, in D3
D'Anastas%Kurt Bird None Bird.OFS 2.parrots.C tree.trunks Isolated nesting,.snake diff Tree,.trunk Bird.OFS Nest/eggs none Varied.from.diorama skink Parrot.identical D2 L shows.habitat.
Greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Countryside: 2 birds, in habitat. Narrative seen. Charismatic to nonX
All OFS, 1 well drawn C,. Tree, grass, Yard: bird C, beetle, 5 birds, gecko, charismatic animals, hunting not shown, but
Diedo%Deon Bat,.butterfly,.dog Tree Antrop hunter.shooting Sun Bird.OFS shrew Yes None Birds.IS None All None butterflies Different None L few.animals.seen.and.no.plants.
9 birds,
Dog, snail, bird, cat, Woods: 6 birds (VX chameleon,. Less animals, bird
Fenech%Gareth fish 3.trees All.OFS form) 2.trees.C Bird.OFS Field:.bird.C Yes Tree,.flower Bird.OFS none none All skink Different D3 L in.D3.better.drawn
Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
Yard: Bird/Basket C,. greater accuracy in placement of organisms
2 trees, Isolated,. birds/ventilator,. 4 birds, shrew, in habitat. Narrative seen. Prespective show
Galea%Charmaine Snail flowers All.OFS Bird.C None Antrop gecko Yes creeper Birds.IS None All None beetle Different None L here.
Rabbit, bat, killer
whale, snail, Field: 2 birds flying,. Yard: rooster much% Bird.OFS,.shrew. Animals basic
crocodile, giraffe, duck C, squirrel, larger, 2 birds C,. OFS, beetle 4 birds, throughout, but in
Incorvaia%Thorin rhino,.rooster,. None N/A hunter.shooting Tree Bird.IS gecko,.shrew,.beetle Yes None OFS Spider/web All None butterflies Bird.similar:.D2,D3 None L context.in.D3.
Owl, Bat, Animals basic
Cat, cow, ostrich, Trees, flowers, Field: Snail C,%ostrich,. 2 trees and All OFS, Weasel, 2 throughout, but in
Muscat%Ayrton snail,.bird grass All.OFS bull,.mouse,.dog,.cat flowers Antrop Bastion:.Rat Yes Tree.C Rat.IS None All Rat birds,.moth. N/A D2 L context.in.D3.
From iconic to
Pelican, butterfly, very well drawn
Muscat%Christopher duck,.starfish None N/A Bird None Isolated No.diorama:.Duck.C Diff None Bird.OFS None none None No.diorama Different None L mallard
From.basic.birds.to.
No diorama: Duck & very well drawn
Scerri%Matthew%John Parrot None N/A Bird.C None Isolated Bird.C Yard,.diff None Isolated N/A N/A N/A No.diorama Different None H mallard
Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
Bat, butterfly, cat, Yard: 3 birds, gecko, greater accuracy in placement of organisms
spider, fish, rabbit, All OFS, Garden: Birds (V), Roses,. shrew, beetle, creeper,. in habitat. Narrative seen. Prespective show
Schembri%Harley snail,.crab,.tadpoles. None Antrop Butterlies.C flowers Butterlies.OFS butterflies Yes flowers All.IS None All None 3.birds Different None L here..Plants.realistically.drawn.
Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
Field: 6 birds (2 birds greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Cat, snail, butterfly, on soil C),. in habitat. Narrative seen. Prespective show
Vella%Marie%Chloe hedgehog,.octopus None N/A 9.Birds.(1.in.C) None Isolated Chameleon,.rabbit Yes tree All.IS Spider All None 4.birds,.skink Different None H:.D2 here.
From iconic snail
Zahra%James Snail None N/A,%Antrop Garden:.none Tree Tree.IS Sand%dune:.None Field,.diff None N/A None N/A None All N/A D2,D3 L to.sand.dune
Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
8 birds, greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Skeletons of ostrich chameleon,. in habitat. Narrative seen. Prespective show
Zerafa%Enrico and.human None N/A Countryside:.bird.C Tree Bird.OFS Field:.2.birds.C,.rabbit Yes tree All.IS None All None skink Bird.similar:.D2,D3 None L here.
CLASS%5.2
305
From woods to isolated
Garden: bird flying,' Birds OFS, NI: Flamingo, No diorama: Owl, Bastion,'no' Birds similar: D2, birds, knowledge
Agius%Myron%Jose bird'nesting 4'types'trees'C Antrop kingfisher'C,'bird None Isolated hoopoe'C,'bird'flying time None Isolated N/A N/A None N/A D3 D1 H decrement
Farm: 4 birds, 3
pheasants, duck, 2 trees,
Azzopardi%Christian snake,'cow'C sunflowers All'IS Absent%for%visit Absent%for%visit
Still basic
9 trees (4 All animals organisms but
7 trees (2 Lion IS, Sun pines) pine Yard: 2 butterflies, Trees,' except' Almost Identical: more animals in
Borg%Liam Wood:'Lion'C pines) OFS Countryside:'none tree'C Trees'IS,'Sun'IS bird'(VNshaped) Yes flowers Butterflies'OFS Clouds Door'only Trees'different butterflies D1,D2 D1 L D3.
All animals Greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Tree C, glass, Garden: Parrot, bird Birds OFS, Yard: 3 butterfles & Trees,' Shutter on opposite except' in habitat. Narrative seen but no perspective,
Borg%Samira Countryside:'None flowers Sun'OFS C,'3'butterflies'flying Grass Butterflies'OFS snail Yes flowers All'OFS,'Antrop None All side butterflies Different D1 L nonNcharismatic'animals.
NI: 8 birds flying (2 Yard: bird flying'
types) 2 birds/tree much larger C,' 4 birds,
nesting, 3 Ants, 2 types tree, Garden: 2 pigeons, Birds OFS, bird/window, beetle, butterflies,' Birds, trees, sun All basic, but less
Camilleri%Christian dog,'2'humans'C flower Birds'OFS horse'C Tree Horse'OFS shrew,'rooster. Valley,'diff 3'trees All'OFS Sun,'web Door'only Sizes'all'different gecko similar:'D1,D2,D3 D1 L animals'shown
NI: Pheasant, Greater accuracy in placement of organisms
spider, butterfly, 6 trees C, 2 All OFS, NI: Pelican, 2 birds Sand Dune: bird Birds similar: D2, in habitat. Narrative seen but no perspective,
Cortis%Myfanwy dog types'of'flower Antrop nesting'C 2'trees Birds'OFS flying,'2birds'C Yes None All'IS None All None 3'birds,'reed D3 D1 L nonNcharismatic'animals.
NI:'2'Swans'C,'duck,' Anthropomorphis
bird, chick, frog, Yes,' m in D1, Birds in
fish, bee, butterfly, 6 trees, 2 prefers' D1&D2 more
ladybird, mouse, types C,'reeds,' Isolated,' NI: 6 bird types; drawing' Bird on boat looking realistic, more Many organisms in 1st
Sephora%Galea spider. flowers Antrop pigeon'C Flower Isolated Sand%Dune:'2'birds from'imag Reed All'IS None All ahead 4'birds Iconic'in'D3 None H and'2nd'to'just'2'birds
NI: Bird, duck,
snake C, monkey, NI: 9 birds(V) flying,' No diorama: butterfly Sand'dune,' All iconic but just one
Gauci%Anne%Marie fish'C Tree Isolated duck,'snake Tree Isolated C diff Flower'C Isolated N/A N/A None N/A Duck'similar None L animal'and'plant'in'D3.
2 types of Field in D1 and D3
Valley&Field: 3 Field: 3 Birds(V) Anthrop, Sun Field: None, diff to flower, 1 very similar. Similar, but more
Gauci%Mark types'of'fish'C Flower 3'types'Fish'IS flying'C,'fish 2'trees OFS draw Yes'&'Yard flower'C' N/A Flowers None Varied'from'Diorama All'animals Flowers'same D1 L plants'in'D3.
2 Pines, 2 Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
Garden: 3 birds green apple, 2 greater accuracy in placement of organisms
flying,'1'bird/tree,'2' red apple, 2 Birds OFS, NI: 4 birds (V) flying% 2 trees, 3 Flowers OFS, Yard: Rooster & 3 Birds OFS, Rooster & bird Shutter on opposite All except in habitat. Narrative seen. Prespective show
Lucasenco%Catalina butterflies'flying'C orange,'5' Butterflies'OFS C flowers Birds'IS birds Yes Flowers Antrop(X4) None in'ventilator side birds Flowers'and'birds D1 L here.
NI: Bird flying,' 5 birds, gecko,
rabbit, elephant C,' Birds OFS, Yard: bird, beetle, butterflies,' All iconic, but less
Marchand%Fabrice hunters Flower Elephant'OFS NI:'Owl'C Tree Birds'OFS shrew'C Yes None All'IS None All None plants Different'birds None VL animals'in'3rd.
Field: Eagle
flying&feeding C,' Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
duck, chicken, Birds similar, Same greater accuracy in placement of organisms
swan, fish, donkey, Farm: Swan C, eagle All OFS, Yard: Rooster C, 3 Birds IS, Shrew All, except feeding' in habitat. Narrative seen. No prespective
Micallef%Joshua butterfly 2'trees All'OFS feeding,'donkey Tree Antrop birds,'beetle,'shrew Yes None &'Beetle'OFS None rooster None 2'birds,'gecko relationship None L show'here.
Garden: Eagle
flying, Parrot
feeding C, Budgie
flying, cat, dog, 5 birds, gecko, Less animals and
butterfly&crysalis% Bastion,' butterflies,' Birds different, ecology from D1 to D3.
Mark%Mifsud C,'caterpillar Tree Birds'OFS NI:'vulture'C,'eagle None Birds'OFS Yard:'Rooster diff Plants Rooster''OFS None All None beetle,'shrew parrot'feeding D1 H Knowledge'decrement
Bird on boat looking Basic organism in
Countryside:'2'birds' 8 trees, 10 Birds OFS, Sand Dune: 4 birds (2 Birds on sand ahead, birds on sand D1 to better
Mifsud%Maxine C,'4'butterflies flowers Butterflies'OFS NI:'Owl,'2'birds'C None Isolated on'sand'C) Yes Reed OFS None All not'facing'each'other 2'birds Birds'similar:'D2,D3' D1 L shown'birds'in'D3.'
Seaside: Birds
flying, bird nesting,'
butterfly, fish, jelly Garden: 4 butterflies
fish, snail, horse C,' All OFS, flying, sheep, dragon Bird on boat looking
Mohamed%Phyllisianne tiger,'ladybird,' Tree Antrop C.%Shows%Sea. Tree,'grass All'OFS Sand%dune:'bird Yes Reed Bird'IS None All ahead 5'birds Birds'similar' D1 VL Less'organisms'shown
Seaside: 4 birds,
bird nesting,'
butterfly flying,'dog' 9 birds, Organisms in context,
C, jelly fish, fish, Countryside: duck C,' chameleon,' to fewer in less well
Muscat%Melchior fishermen Tree All'IS turtle,'horse Tree Isolated Field:'Bird'C,'2'rabbits Yes Tree All'OFS None None Varied'from'Diorama skink Animals'similar D1 VL shown'habitat
One well drawn
8 birds, bird in D1 to more
Countryside: Green chameleon,' VL:' but more basic
Powell%Matthew Finch'C Plants Birds'OFS NI:'Pelican'C 3'Trees Birds'OFS Field:'2'Birds'C,'rabbit Valley,'diff Tree All'IS None All Varied'from'Diorama skink Different'birds D1 D2,D3 animals
2 Trees
Garden: 2 ducks C,' (apple), 2 NI: Owl, duck, Colourful, animals in
6 birds (V) flying,' flowers, wild flamingo, Ostrich, 2 Isolated,' habitat in D1 to poor
Scerri%Erika bird'nesting,'4'fish plant All'IS birds'C None Antrop Sand%dune:'3'birds'C Yes None Isolated None N/A No'diorama N/A Birds'similar D1 L:'D2,'D3 drawing'in'D3.
Sand Dune: Duck,
Schembri%Claire Garden:'2'girls 2'trees Sun'OFS Garden:'her'and'bro 2'trees Isolated lizard'C,'rat Yes 2'flowers Isolated None N/A No'diorama N/A Similar:'D1,'D2 None VL Focus'on'separate'animals'from'just'humans
Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
5 birds, gecko, greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Beach: Duck, bird, All OFS, Sand-dune,- butterflies,- in habitat. Narrative seen, but limited
Smith&Benjamin dog-C,-hamster,-cat Palm Antrop Crow-C Tree Isolated Yard:-Rooster-C diff creeper All-IS None All None beetle,-shrew Different-birds None L:-D3 prespective-shown-here.
Seaside: birds, 4
fish, shark, octopus
Xuereb&AJ C Algae All-OFS Absent&for&visit Absent&for&visit
Seaside: Eagle,
birds(V), fish, Flowers C,- Hedgehog,- All animals & Greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Zahra&Jean&Paul people-C Tree Sun-OFS Crow-C None Isolated Field:-hedgehog Yes wild-plants Flowers-OFS flowers None Varied-from-Diorama plants Different D1 L in-habitat,-more-focused-on-one-habitat
CLASS%5.3
306
Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
Countryside:"2"birds" 2 cherry trees, Countryside: 3 2 Cherry Flowers," greater accuracy in placement of organisms
flying, butterfly 9 flowerds (4 Animals OFS, butterflies flying C"(2" trees," Yard: 2 butterflies C," creeper," butterlies & All, except 5 birds, gecko, Almost identical: in habitat. Narrative seen, but limited
Bartolo%Lenise flying"C,"snail,"cat types) Antrop types),"Bird"flying flowers Animals"OFS rooster Yes flowers rooster"IS None door None beetle,"shrew D1,D2 All L:D3 prespective"shown"here.
Rooster"looking"other"
Garden: bird way, broken EGG Very colourful D1 to
nesting, 3 squirrels Yard: butterfly, gecko, Sand"dune," beneath it (misstook 5"birds,"beetle," less elaborate D3 with
Borda%Aaron C" 2"trees Animals"OFS Bird None Isolated rooster"much%larger diff Flowers Animals"OFS Broken"egg All for"hen)" shrew Birds"similar D1 L fewer"organism
Garden: 2 Butterflies 2 tree types,
Tree, flowers, flying C, 2 bees 2 flower Animals OFS, Field: Rabbit C, rat All, except 10 birds, Very similar, iconic
Borg%Maylea Garden:%butterflies grass Butterlies"OFS flying types Anthrop:%Sun lizard Yes None Animals"OSF Rat skink Anthrop:%Rabbit% chameleon Different"animals D2 VL organisms
Garden:"
Parrot/cage, 2 Tree," Garden: bird flying, 5 birds, gecko,
pigeons/tree"C,"bird" sunflower," bird/tree, snail, Trees," Flowers on opposite butterflies," Greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Briffa%Ethan flying,"bird/grass grass Animals"OFS grasshopper,"snake Tree All"IS Yard:%2"birds Yes flowers All"IS None Birds,"tress side beetle,"shrew All"organisms D1 L in"habitat,"more"focused"on"one"habitat
Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Sand dune: Bird on Bird on boat looking in habitat. Narrative seen, but limited
Bugeja%Nathan Rabbit"C None Isolated Bird%C None Isolated boat"C,%bird"on"stone Yes None Birds"IS None All toward"front 4"birds Different"birds D1,"D2 H:D2 prespective"shown"here.
Thai Boy:
Forest: Adult snake 5 birds, gecko, difference in
C, 2 juveniles and 1 2 tree types, 2 All OSF, Wood: flying bird, 3 Trees," butterflies," experience with Greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Buhagiar%Piyawat hatching" flower"types Anthrop:%Sun butterflies,"humans flowers All"OFS Yard:%2"birds Yes% None Birds"IS None Birds Only"part"of"setting beetle,"shrew animals D1 H in"habitat,"more"focused"on"one"habitat
2 apple
Apple Tree, 1 Garden: Butterflies trees, 3 Yard: Rooster C, rat,
tulip, 2 All OSF, flying C, 3 bees tulips, 2 Animals OFS, shrew, gecko, rabbit. Iconic organisms
Garden: Cat C, bee daffodils, wild Anthrop: cat, flying, 2 gold fish, daffodils," Anthrop: Sun, Anthropomorphism:" Shrew, gecko 5"birds,"beetle," Bees, cat similar: shown in all,
Chetcuti%Dale flying,"2"gold"fish flower bee cat,"mouse grass bees rabbit,"rooster Yes&field Flower Animals"OSF Rat,"Rabbit only Varied"from"diorama butterfly D1,"D2 D1,"D2 L colour"in"D1&D2
Garden: birds
flying, bird/tree, 2 Garden:"Bird"flying,"2" 5"birds,"beetle," From colourful D1&D2
butterflies C, girl, 2 tree, 2 Butterlies OFS, types of Butterflies Apple tree, butterflies," to colorless D3 with
Chircop%Francesca squirrel flowers,"grass Flowers"OFS flying"C flower,"grass Anthrop:%Sun Yard:"gecko Yes&field Grass Gecko"IS None Only"gecko Varied"from"diorama shrew Similar:"D1,"D2 D1,"D2 L only"a"gecko&"grass
De%Giorgio%Lee%Harvey 2"Parrots"C,"monkey None Isolated Absent%for%visit Absent%for%visit
5"birds,"beetle,"
Forest: Robin flying" butterflies,"
6 types of (larger), butterfly shrew," Less animal
Farrugia%Kimberly Garden:"dog"C flowers,"grass Dog"OFS flying 3"trees Animals"OFS Yard:"none Yes plants N/A None Only"plants Varied"from"diorama rooster,"gecko Different" D1,"D2 VL representation"in"D3
Yard: rooster, 2 birds
Garden: Bird flying Tree, flowers, Garden: eagle C," C, bird flying, owl, Most animals Aspects of different
C, bee, rabbit, 2 grass," Animals OFS, pigeon,"sparrow,"owl," duck, spider, IS, except dioramas shown,
Gatt%Kurt persons"C sunflower Anthrop cat,"bird"flying". 2"Trees Animals"OFS butterfly,"2"rats," Yes 2"Flowers butterfly Clouds,"sun Only"1"bird Anthrop N/A Animals"similar D1,"D2 L Enhancement"of"existant"knowledge
4 flowers, 2 Garden: Bird, 2 trees, 3 9 birds, Reduced animal
Garden: 4 goldfish types of tree, Goldfish OFS, butterfly flying C," flowers," Animals OFS, Rabbit IS, Bird Varied from diorama, chameleon," Similar trees, representation and
Gauci%Katya C,"cat grass Flowers"OSF bees"flying" grass Anthrop:%Sun Field:"Rabbit,"Bird"C Yes None OSF None Only"rabbit Anthrop skink flowers:"D1,"D2 D1,"D2 L habitat
Flying bird, Basic iconic
Pet shop: 3 Birds Pet shop: 2 Birds, 3 bird/reed, 2 Trees and flowers representation in
Giordmaina%Gerald flying%C,"3"fish Flower"pot Animals"OFS fish 2"flowers Animals"OFS Sand%Dune:"2"birds Yes Reed All"IS None All Boat"colour birds"on"sand similar D1,"D2 L all
Countryside: bird Tree," Seaside: bird flying , 9 birds, Basic iconic
flying C, rabbit, Sunflower, 3 2 types of butterflies chameleon," representation in
Grech%Maxim bee,"ants types"of"flower Animals"OFS flying,"4"fish,"whale"C None Animals"OFS Field:"Rabbit,"Bird"C Yes Tree Birds"IS Sun Only"1"bird Varied"from"diorama skink Birds"similar All L all
Forest: Eagle flying
C, Taucan C, frog, Park: bird flying,"
crab, cheetah, Spider&web," moth flying C, snake Bastion: bat flying," Moth, weasel,
Micallef%Andrew snake,"cobra," 4"trees,"grass OFS C,"duck,"fish Flower,"tree Animals"OFS bird,"owl"C,"rat Yes Weed Owl"OFS None All Owl"eyes"only"shown bird Birds"similar All H Enhancement"of"existant"knowledge
Birds similar, Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
Sand dune: Bird on duck" Vulture realistic. greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Seaside: 5 ducks 2"types"of"tree," Cliffs: Eagle C," boat C, 4 birds, bird opening" Bird on boat looking Rock strata in in habitat. Narrative seen and some
Muscat%Jeremy (large) mushrooms Ducks"OFS vulture,"turtle"dove. None Birds"IS flying""" Yes None Stone"bird"OFS bivalve All toward"front Bird"on"reed Malta All H prespective"shown"here.
Aquarium: 2 sharks Reduced animal
C, goldfish, dolphin, Yard: bird flying," Bird"on"shutter"facing" 4 birds, representation and
Potelli%Liam divers Algae Fish"OFS NI:"Robin,"bird"C Tree Robin"OFS beetle,"shrew"C Yes 2"trees Shrew"OFS Flying"bird All opposite"direction rooster,"gecko Different"birds D1 H habitat
Seabed: shark C,,
Saliba&Kyle frog,eating,fish None Animals,OFS Absent&for&visit Absent&for&visit D1 L
Mountains: Duck Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
Waterfall: 2 Duck flying&feeding C,, greater accuracy in placement of organisms
flying, 2 ducks in duck feeding C,, Bastion: bat flying , Own eyes only Moth, weasel, in habitat. Narrative seen and some
Sant&Clayton water,C,,2,fish None Animals,IS snake,,bat,flying& Tree,,grass Animals,OFS bird,,owl,C,,rat Yes Tree Owl,OFS None All shown,&Anthrop bird Birds,similar All L prespective,shown,here.
Bastion: bat flying C,, Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
Park: bird flying,, Butterlies OFS, birds/tree, bird flying Bat, moth, greater accuracy in placement of organisms
duck, squirrel, 2 2 apple trees, Flowers OFS, Seaside: Pelican C, 2 C, owl, rat, weasel, weasel & in habitat. Narrative seen, but limited
Scerri&Mark butterflies,flying,C 2,flowers Antrop sordfish,,starfish None Fish,OFS,, moth Yes 2,tree,,palm rat,OFS All None,,Anthrop(X3) None Different,birds D1 L prespective,shown,here.
Increased accuracy in habitat representation,
Sand dune: Bird on Flying bird in greater accuracy in placement of organisms
Woods: bird C,, boat C, bird flying C,, Birds,on,sand,&, opposite direction, in habitat. Narrative seen, but limited
Tonna&Melchior snake,,dog Tree Snake,OFS NI:,Pelican,C,,robin Apple,tree Birds,OFS 4,birds Yes Reed stone,OFS None All Anthrop:&boat None Birds,similar D1,,D2 L prespective,shown,here.
27/57=47% 16/57=28% 14/57=25%
63&total
1&downs&syndrome
1&refused
4&absent&for&visit
57&participants
Features that pupils wished to draw
Class Task Cases Pre-diorama Cases Diorama Cases
Jelly fish 1 Cat 1 Bird 5
Squid 1 Dog 1 Chameleon 1
Starfish 1 Eagle 1 Weasel 4
Cats 11 Total 3 Rat 1
Bees 2 Butterflies 1
Birds 6 Rooster 1
Horse 4 Shrew 1
Elephant 2 Beetles 1
Dolphin 3 Gecko 1
Sea Lion 1 Snails 1
Butterfly 1 Animals 3
Frog 1 Total 20
Rabbit 2
Crab 1 Flowers 1
Eagle 1 Trees 1
Sea Horse 1 Vine 1
Dog 11 Sea weed 1
Sheep 1 Total 4
Parrot 1
Ants 1 Wall 1
Squirrel 2
Owl 1
Fish 2
Rabbit 1
Rooster 1
Whale 2
Turtle 1
Panda 1
Snake 2
Beaver 1
Tiger 1
Total 68
Grass 2
Tree 2
Plants 1
Flower 2
Total 7
307